Accessibility is Primarily About People
and Processes, Not Digital Resources!
Brian Kelly

Contact Details

Innovation Adv...
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are given to the co-authors of the
holistic accessibility series of peer-reviewed papers...
Introduction

Abstract
Standardisation work for web accessibility has focused
primarily on conformance of digital resource...
History

My Previous Work
Timeline of my involvement in Web accessibility work
http://www.dipity.com/briankelly/Web_Access...
History

History

Developing and refining alternative approaches

Critique of WCAG metrics

In Jan 2009 work presented at ...
6

OZeWAI
OZeWAI

What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me?
"What can be done to help the...
OZeWAI

What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me?
"What can be done to help the...
OZeWAI

What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Other OZeWAI 2013 sessions cover broader issues:
SOCITM surveys cover wider iss...
OZeWAI

What’s Missing?
Some thoughts on issues which appear to be
missing from the OZeWAI 2013 conference
The ‘post-digit...
A Controversial View?

This paper argues that
web accessibility is not
an intrinsic
characteristic of a digital
resource b...
Looking Back

Is Accessibility Really Complex?
Is web accessibility really
“determined by complex
political, social and ot...
Looking Back

Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which
requires climbin...
Looking Back

Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which
requires climbin...
Looking Back

Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires
climbin...
Looking Back

From Web to Blended Accessibility

WAI model is based solely on
characteristics of Web resource and
tools to...
The Post-Digital World

What Will The Post-digital Era Mean For Brands?
Amy Edel-Vaughn , Interbrand blog, 7 August, 2012
...
Looking Back

WCAG 2.0’s Four Principles
WCAG 2.0 introduced four key principles.
Content must be:
1. Perceivable
2. Opera...
Looking Back

Understanding “Understanding”
What does “understanding” mean for a surrealist
painting?
See Accessibility 2....
Looking Back

Understanding “Understanding”
What does “understanding” mean for learning?

“Learning is achieved when the
l...
Accessibility For Me!
“Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which
requires a high-spec PC. It is not
universal...
Accessibility For Me!
“Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which
requires a high-spec PC. It is not
universal...
Looking Back

Need For A Wide Range of Stakeholders
WAI model does not
address:
• Ways of identifying and
engaging with ra...
What Next?

What Is To Be Done?
Complexity should not mean inaction. Something needs
to be done! But what?

Doing the Righ...
What Next?

Aversive Disablism
“'Aversive disablists recognise disablism is bad but do not
recognize that they themselves ...
Disability, Web Standards, and the
Majority World
“Web standards offer a powerful tool for achieving
global web accessibil...
Limitations of Our Work
Research work on
holistic approaches to
Web accessibility:
• Well known across
research
community
...
Enter BS 8878
BS 8878:
• Developed in UK in parallel with our
holistic accessibility work
• UK standardisation work aligne...
BS 8878’s 16 Stages

BS 8878 describes 16 steps which cover 4 stages.
See BS 8878 in 88 Seconds video

29
BS 8878

BS 8878’s 16 Steps
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:

Define the purpose of the web product
Define the target audie...
BS 8878

About BS 8878
BS 8878 Web Accessibility Code of Practice is a process-oriented
standard created in the UK to allo...
BS 8878

BS 8878 and Other Standards
BS 8878 adds a framework to technical accessibility guidelines
like WCAG 2.0 to ensur...
BS 8878

In Brief
At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all
accessibility decisions based on the purpose ...
BS 8878

In Brief
At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all
accessibility decisions based on the purpose ...
BS 8878

What Next?
“Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting
accessibility successfully within a large org...
BS 8878

What Next?
“Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting
accessibility successfully within a large org...
What Next?

But What Can I Do Next?
You can:
• Take an area which poses difficulties in ensuring WCAG
compliance e.g.
• Yo...
What Next?

Conclusions
To conclude:
• There is a need to think beyond the digital
resource and the digital tools
• You sh...
Any Questions?
Note an accompanying blog post is available at
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2013/11/29
Feel free to ask ...
Book available
from BSI Press
in Q1, 2014

for information, email: book@hassellinclusion.com
Licence and Additional Resources

This presentation, “Accessibility is Primarily About People and
Processes, Not Digital R...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!

3,135
-1

Published on

Slides for a talk on "Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!" given as a pre-recorded slidecast (with audio) by Brian Kelly, Cetis at the OZeWAI 2013 conference held at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia on Friday 29 November 2013.

For further information see http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/

Published in: Education, Design, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,135
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hello. My name is Brian Kelly. I’m the Innovation Advocate at Cetis, a national Centre for Educational Technologies and Innovation Standards based atthe University of Bolton in the UK.The title of my talk, the final talk at the OZeWAI 2013 conference is "Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!".  Unfortunately I can't attend the conference in person so I've created this pre-recorded presentation.
  • The work I'll be describing is the result of collaborations since 2004 with accessibility researchers and practitioners primarily based in the UK, but also from Australia.
  • The abstract for this talk is shown. In brief I will review approaches developed by accessibility researchers and practitioners since 2005 and complementary standardisation work which resulted in the BS 8878 Code of Practice for Web Accessibility.
  • I have long-standing involvement with Web accessibility, having attended the WAI launch meeting in 1997. Initially I promoted take-up of WCAG guidelines. The following a growing awareness of its limitations I led work in the development of approaches which aim address the complexities posed by the diverse ways in which the web is being used.
  • I should add that following a presentation of our work at the OZeWAI conference in 2009 Lisa Herrod and Ruth Ellison contributed their insights into a subsequent paper. 
  • But now the OZeWAI 2013 conference is taking place.
  • What have I missed? 
  • Looking at the programme it seems that there is an assumption that accessibility is primarily about digital content & tools: WCAG conformance; ensuring that Web developers and content authors are aware of and able to exploit the accessibility features of markup languages HTML5, tools such as Drupal and other technical developments such as schema.org and RDF application .
  • It's true that other talks cover broader issues and I've highlighted a couple: the importance of usabilityand the need to prioritise the needs of the user. But I particularly liked the question that was posed which suggested that we may need different perspectives in order that developers can see things differently. In this talk I hope to provide some new perspectives.
  • I'll begin my giving some thoughts on issues which seem to be missing from the conference.There doesn't seem to be any considerations given to what has been referred to as the 'post-digital' environment we are moving towards or considerations of real world approaches to addressing web accessibility challenges.There doesn't appear to have been any consideration given to perspectives on disabilities from disciplines such as disability studies or sociology. disabilities seem to be considered to be a medical problem which can be solved by global technical solutions.  And there seem to be no considerations of the importance of standards beyond those related to Web resources or metadata for describing Web resources.I will be looking into these three areas. But first I'll review the work which led to my current perspectives.
  • In a recent paper we began with the view that"web accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which are the focus of WAIstandardisation activities."From this we concluded that it is "inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on metrics only associated with properties of the resource".We might also argue that significant national and international conferences also need to address such political, social and other related factors.Is this a controversial view, I wonder?
  • For some, perhaps, this is introducing unnecessary complexities.  The WAI quick tips card suggested that Web accessibility can be solved by using some simple techniques when creating Web resources.This led to pressures on policy makers to introduce requirements, and perhaps even legislation, that such simple techniques must be used across all Web resources, particularly those provided by public sector bodies.
  • But we should remember that approaches to addressing accessibility challenges pre-date the Web. What can be learnt from looking at approaches to enhancing the accessibility in learning.This example is taken from our first paper, "Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility". We provided a scenario of a field trip, which involved climbing hills in order to collect rocks prior to related group work.
  • The application of an approach based on "universal accessibility" might seek to make the mountain accessible to all by building a ramp or, alternatively, by cancelling the field trip for everybody. 
  • However such approaches, I would hope, are clearly inappropriate. The approaches develop by a learning organisation was to ensure that key learning objectives (such as working in teams) were accessible. Considerations of such approaches led to the development of holistic approaches to Web accessibility which we described in our first paper, "Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility". 
  • In the development of our model we described limitations of the WAI model, which addressed only the digital object and the tools for creating and viewing the object.Our model focused on the accessibility of learner’s needs.  In a follow-up paper we explained how the learner’s needs could be addressed by a variety of solutions: Web solutions, other IT solutions and real world solutions. We introduced the concept of 'blended accessibility for blended learning' as institutions began to appreciate that elearning was simply one aspect of learning, and not a replacement.
  • In the 1990s we were excited by technologies, such as the Web.Today and near future we are finding that technologies are becoming pervasive yet, simultaneously invisible. What are the implications for Web practices in a 'post-digital' age?Is sending and reading a tweet a Web action, covered by Web practices such as WCAG? What about sending a text message?“Technology is everything that doesn’t work yet” said DanyHillis. Mobile devices, ebook readers, digital cameras, smart TVs and so on are beginning to not be regarded as technologies, but simply consumer devices. What are the implications for Web practices developed in the 1990s?
  • Consider the four key principles which were introduced in WCAG 2.0:This described how accessible content must be:Perceivable OperableUnderstandable - by which is meant the "Information" as well as the operation of the user interface must be understandableand Robust 
  • I'll not ask what is meant by information. Rather I'll try and unpick the "Content must be understandable" principle.What does “understanding” mean for a surrealist painting? The Web as a channel for access to cultural resources as well as informational resources was addressed in a paper published in 2009.
  • Another question is "What does 'understanding' mean for learning?"It has been suggested that "Learning is achieved when the learner is actively engaged in the creation of knowledge rather than the passive recipient of information".From a Social constructivism perspective "groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings". The construction of knowledge can be helped by a variety of resources, including books, magazines and electronic resources as well as the group interactions which may be face-to-face, by letter (in times of Jane Austin, perhaps) or by a variety of computer technologies, one of which will be the Web.
  • In a YouTube video published in 2007, Judith, who has cerebral palsy, describes the pleasure she gains from use of Second Life and the opportunities it provides to meet others. She finds Second Life useful for her.
  • But what if public sector organisations have policies which have a narrow technical focus or feel constrained by legislation which appears to prohibit use of technologies which are not universally accessible?A question to be asked is "Should we make resources universally accessible by removing resources which make be inaccessible to some so that they can't be used by anybody? "
  • The WAI guidelines don't address processes and stakeholders. We can't ignore such issues if we wish to develop sustainable accessibility.  It would therefore be great if we could standardise processes for areas such as stakeholder engagement.
  • Complexity should not mean inaction. Something needs to be done! But what?Australian Government has summarised key goals: “Australian Government services must not discriminate against people with disabilities.”But are the approaches for implementing these goals the correct ones?: "The Australian Government states that compliance to WCAG 1.0 is mandatory"
  • 'Aversive disablistsrecognisedisablism is bad but do not recognize that they themselves are prejudiced' Are legislators, who develop legislation which block access to services which Judith finds beneficial, guilty of Aversive Disablism?What about institutional policy makers and Web managers who implement such legislation
  • Sarah Lewthwaite and Henny Swan address such socio-cultural issues in a chapter on "Disability, Web Standards, and the Majority World" published in a book on "Rhetorical Accessability: At the Intersection of Technical Communication and Disability Studies".Perhaps this should be recommended reading for those involved in Web accessibility who wish to gain an insight into some of the wider discussions informed by disability studies.
  • Although our work has been widely cited and has won awards, a limitation has been that our work hasn't had an influence on legislators.It has also left unresolved answers to the question web developers need to answer "But what is it specifically I should do?"  At least using WAI enabled me to say "The Web resources will conform with WCAG A"
  • BS 8878 has been developed in UK in parallel with our holistic accessibility work. This BS standard is aligned with ideas described in our paper on “Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes” - the standard focussed on policies, the systematic processes needed to ensure such policies are implemented and the stakeholders needed in developing the policies.The editor of the standard is Work led by Jonathan Hassell. The standard itself costs £100 but there are online resources available about the standard which are available for free.
  • BS 8878 describes 16 steps which cover 4 stages : the research before you start the work; the strategic decisions you make based on the research; the delivery and launch of the Web site (which is where decisions on WCAG are made) and the ongoing maintenance of the Web resource.Note a BS 8878 in 88 Seconds video is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ4MRCyMTRQ
  • The 16 steps in BS 8878 are shown. Note that step 13 includes the implementation of the web standards, such as WCAG, which have been selected. From this we can see that BS 8878 isn't intended as an alternative to WCAG, but a much broader approach which standardises processes when can help in the development of accessible services.
  • A summary of BS 8878, taken from a paper published in the Ariadne ejournal in July 2013 is shown
  • The paper explains how BS 8878 provides the contextual framework by which organisations can make use of WAG guidelines, as well as address the real world challenges faced by web developers, such as the procurement and use of CMSs, use of third-party content and services; etc.
  • The conclusions from the paper are shown.
  • I've highlighted the key aspects. The standard:"encourages organisations to make all accessibility decisions". These decisions are based on several contextual aspects including "the purpose of their product and the specific audiences".Having carried out the research the organisation can then make the decision on overall degree of accessibility they wish the Web product to have.Finally organisations should document methodologies for use across the lifetime of the product to ensure that we don't see "accessibility rot" after the launch of the product.
  • The suggestions from the paper for further work are shown.
  • I've highlighted the key aspects:"process standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible and given greater support at a global level""we need greater sharing of success stories"But we also need greater sharing of the "constraints within which work had to take place, what was done" And sharing of "measurable evidence of impact ".
  • You may be asking what you can do next, as a result of hearing about the complexities of accessibility, the wide range of contexts and the potential which BS 8878 can provide.Some suggestions:Take an area which poses difficulties in ensuring WCAG compliance, such as:o An institutional repository containing many PDFs which don't have accessibility aidso A VLE, with the constraints many VLEs haveo Your plans for lecture captureor your plans for a MOOC.Then make use of BS 8878's 16 stages to document your plans, stake-holders, user engagement, constraints, policy decisions and sustainability plans
  • To conclude:If you care about accessibility you’ll think beyond the digital resource and the digital toolsYou should engage with a wide range of stakeholders in enhancing accessibilityYou should also consider alternative perspectives of ‘accessibility’ and disabilityIt’s OK to reject ‘universal accessibility’ and focus on ‘accessibility for these users in these circumstances’WCAG is still relevant, but shouldn’t dominate BS 8878 provides a standard for further work
  • I’d welcome questions and comments. Note that I’ve published a blog post on which can be used for questions.Thank you.
  • body copy no bullets
  • Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!

    1. 1. Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources! Brian Kelly Contact Details Innovation Advocate Cetis University of Bolton Bolton, UK Email: ukwebfocus@gmail.com Twitter: @briankelly Cetis Web site: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/ Slides and further information available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/ 1
    2. 2. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements are given to the co-authors of the holistic accessibility series of peer-reviewed papers: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Elaine Swift (2004) Lawrie Phipps (2004, 2005, 2006) David Sloan (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) Helen Petrie (2005, 2006, 2007) Fraser Hamilton (2005, 2006) Caro Howell (2005) Andy Heath (2006) Acknowledgements are also given to Stephen Brown (2007, 2009) Jonathan Hassell and Dominik Lukeš, Jane Seale (2007, 2009) co-authors of a recent Ariadne article: Patrick Lauke (2007, 2009) http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue71/kelly-et-al Simon Ball (2007, 2009) Liddy Nevile (2008, 2009) EA Draffan (2008) Sotiris Fanou (2008, 2009) Stuart Smith (2009) Ruth Ellison (2009) Lisa Herrod (2009) All papers are available from Opus the Sarah Lewthwaite (2010, 2012) University of Bath institutional repository: Martyn Cooper (2012) http://opus.bath.ac.uk/view/person_id/588.html 2
    3. 3. Introduction Abstract Standardisation work for web accessibility has focused primarily on conformance of digital resources with a series of checkpoints. But as Cooper et al have argued "web accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which are the focus of WAI standardisation activities. It can therefore be inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on metrics only associated with properties of the resource." This talk reviews the approaches which have been developed by accessibility researchers and practitioners in the UK since 2005 and complementary standardisation work which resulted in the BS 8878 Code of Practice for Web Accessibility. 3
    4. 4. History My Previous Work Timeline of my involvement in Web accessibility work http://www.dipity.com/briankelly/Web_Accessibility_Timeline_For_Brian_Kelly/ Promoting WAI to UK Universities Realisation of flaws in WAI’s model Articulating New flaws approaches 4
    5. 5. History History Developing and refining alternative approaches Critique of WCAG metrics In Jan 2009 work presented at OZeWAI and subsequent discussions led to new paper with Australian insights provided by Lisa Herrod and Ruth Ellison. 5
    6. 6. 6 OZeWAI
    7. 7. OZeWAI What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me? "What can be done to help them get all Victoria Council websites to be AA conformant?" "accessibility support and features of present-generation mobile devices" "access Features for schema.org / ISO 24751" "Accessible modern video for all" “The main issues in getting government to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must be for the industry who are helping government over the next 12 months to the end of the NTS." "HTML 5 accessibility overview" "An update on W3C/WAI activities and outputs " 7
    8. 8. OZeWAI What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me? "What can be done to help them get all Victoria Council websites to be AA conformant?" "accessibility support and features of present-generation mobile devices" "access Features for schema.org / ISO 24751" "Accessible modern video for all" “The main issues in getting government to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must be for the industry who are helping government over the next 12 months to the end of the NTS." "HTML 5 accessibility overview" "An update on W3C/WAI activities and outputs " What have they in common? Accessibility is about digital content & tools: ensuring that Web content conforms with WCAG guidelines; ensuring that Web developers and content authors are aware of and able to exploit accessibility features in languages (HTML5) and tools (e.g. Drupal) and other technical developments (e.g schema.org and RDF application profiles). 8
    9. 9. OZeWAI What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Other OZeWAI 2013 sessions cover broader issues: SOCITM surveys cover wider issues: usability/functionality/accessibility "As web accessibility professionals, we should be primarily concerned with serving the needs of web users, not developers" “Do we need a different view point if we are ever going to be able to help developers understand how to take the first crucial steps in the right direction?" 9
    10. 10. OZeWAI What’s Missing? Some thoughts on issues which appear to be missing from the OZeWAI 2013 conference The ‘post-digital’ environment e.g. blended accessibility for blended learning Standards beyond resources / describing resources Critiques and concerns beyond the technical / usability camps: e.g. disability theorists and sociologist perspectives on disability considerations To be discussed after looking a historical perspective on Web accessibility activities 10
    11. 11. A Controversial View? This paper argues that web accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which are the focus of WAI standardisation activities. It can therefore be inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on metrics only associated with properties of the resource. Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S., 2012. A Challenge to Web Accessibility Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and Processes First. In: W4A 2012: 9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility. 11
    12. 12. Looking Back Is Accessibility Really Complex? Is web accessibility really “determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors”? Surely it’s about: • A simple set of rules to be applied to web resources • Legislation which mandates organisations to use the rule • Education on how to implement the rules 12
    13. 13. Looking Back Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3. 13
    14. 14. Looking Back Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3. 14
    15. 15. Looking Back Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. However using our model the teacher would identify the learning experiences (perhaps selection of minerals in their natural environment and working in a team) and seek equivalent learning experiences (perhaps providing the student with 3G phone technologies, videos, for use in selecting the mineral, followed by team-building activities back at the base camp).” Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3. 15
    16. 16. Looking Back From Web to Blended Accessibility WAI model is based solely on characteristics of Web resource and tools to create and view resources. Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), May 2005. Holistic model focuses on accessibility of learner’s needs. The learner’s needs can be addressed by a variety of solutions: Web, other IT and real world. 16
    17. 17. The Post-Digital World What Will The Post-digital Era Mean For Brands? Amy Edel-Vaughn , Interbrand blog, 7 August, 2012 In the 1990s we were fascinated by technologies such as the Web Today and near future: • Technologies pervasive yet invisible • What are the implications for Web practices in a post-digital age? Is sending and reading a tweet a Web action, covered by Web practices such as WCAG? What about sending a text message? Ideas based on Postdigital: Escaping the Kingdom of the New?, Dave White, TALL blog, 19 June 2009, 17
    18. 18. Looking Back WCAG 2.0’s Four Principles WCAG 2.0 introduced four key principles. Content must be: 1. Perceivable 2. Operable 3. Understandable - Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable 4. Robust 18
    19. 19. Looking Back Understanding “Understanding” What does “understanding” mean for a surrealist painting? See Accessibility 2.0: Next Steps For Web Accessibility, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Smith, S., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. Journal of Access Services, Vol. 6 Issue 1 & 2, 2009, pp. 265-294. The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
    20. 20. Looking Back Understanding “Understanding” What does “understanding” mean for learning? “Learning is achieved when the learner is actively engaged in the creation of knowledge rather than the passive recipient of information” Anon. “Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings” Wikipedia 20
    21. 21. Accessibility For Me! “Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which requires a high-spec PC. It is not universally accessible. In a video entitled Wheeling In Second Life, Judith, who has cerebral palsy, describes the pleasure she gains from her use of Second Life and the facility it provides her to meet others. Public sector organisations that are bound too narrowly by technical or even contextual rules and legislation, might feel compelled to shy away from making use of Second Life. In doing so, they might deny users such as Judith the special benefits in terms of engagement that it offers her” From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S., Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, 2009 21
    22. 22. Accessibility For Me! “Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which requires a high-spec PC. It is not universally accessible. In a video entitled Wheeling In Second Life, Judith, who has cerebral palsy, describes the pleasure she gains from her use of Second Life and the facility it provides her to meet others. Public sector organisations that are bound too narrowly by technical or even contextual rules and legislation, might feel compelled to shy away from making use of Second Life. In doing so, they might deny users such as Judith the special benefits in terms of engagement that it offers her” 22
    23. 23. Looking Back Need For A Wide Range of Stakeholders WAI model does not address: • Ways of identifying and engaging with range of stakeholders • Processes needed to develop sustainable accessibility It be useful if there were standards to address stakeholder engagement in Web development Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. WWW 2007 Banff, Canada. 23
    24. 24. What Next? What Is To Be Done? Complexity should not mean inaction. Something needs to be done! But what? Doing the Right Thing? “Under the Australian Disabilities Act (1992) [43], Australian Government services must not discriminate against people with disabilities.” Implementing Legal Requirements in a Flawed Way? “The Australian Government Information Management Office states that compliance to WCAG 1.0 is mandatory for all Government departments and agencies [44].” From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S., Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, Volume 4, Issue 4, July 2009, pp. 212-226. DOI: 10.1080/17483100902903408 24
    25. 25. What Next? Aversive Disablism “'Aversive disablists recognise disablism is bad but do not recognize that they themselves are prejudiced' [6]. Where aversive racists are not anti-black, but pro-white [7], aversive disablists may not be anti-disabled, but rather pro-non-disabled. This disablism, is often unintentional” Who may be aversive disablists? • Legislators, who develop legislation which has unforeseen effects for Judith? • Institutional policy makers and Web managers who implement such legislation? Developing Countries; Developing Experiences: Approaches to Accessibility for the Real World, Kelly, B., Lewthwaite, S. and Sloan, D., W4A 2010, April 26-27, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-4503-0045-2 DOI: 10.1145/1805986.1805992 25
    26. 26. Disability, Web Standards, and the Majority World “Web standards offer a powerful tool for achieving global web accessibility. However, the success of such standards may be limited while standards fail to account for disability as a socio-cultural product dependent on any given context.” From Chapter 9, Disability, Web Standards, and the Majority World by Sarah Lewthwaite and Henny Swan. In Rhetorical Accessability: At the Intersection of Technical Communication and Disability Studies, ISBN: 978-0-89503-789-3, August 2013. 26
    27. 27. Limitations of Our Work Research work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility: • Well known across research community • Widely cited • Awarded prize at W4A 2010 But: • Little impact on legislators and policy makers • Left unresolved “what should I do?” 27
    28. 28. Enter BS 8878 BS 8878: • Developed in UK in parallel with our holistic accessibility work • UK standardisation work aligned with ideas described in “Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes”, W4A 2007 • Work led by Jonathan Hassell, Hassell Inclusion and former Head of Usability & Accessibility, BBC Future Media • Costs £100 • See Getting Started Guide and Hassell Inclusion 28
    29. 29. BS 8878’s 16 Stages BS 8878 describes 16 steps which cover 4 stages. See BS 8878 in 88 Seconds video 29
    30. 30. BS 8878 BS 8878’s 16 Steps Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Define the purpose of the web product Define the target audiences for the web product Analyse the needs of the target audiences for the web product Note any platform or technology preferences and restrictions of the web product's target audiences Step 5: Define the relationship the product will have with its target audiences Step 6: Define the user goals and tasks the web product needs to provide Step 7: Step 8: Step 9: Step 10: Consider the degree of user-experience the web product will aim to provide Consider inclusive design and user-personalized approaches to accessibility Choose the delivery platforms to support Choose the target browsers, operating systems and assistive technologies to support Step 11: Choose whether to create or procure the web product in-house or contract out externally Step 12: Define the web technologies to be used in the web product Step 13: Use web guidelines to direct accessible web production Step 14: Assure the web product's accessibility through production Step 15: Communicate the web product's accessibility decisions at launch Step 16: Plan to assure accessibility in all post-launch updates to the product See A Challenge to Web Accessibility Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and Processes First, Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S. W4A 2012. 30
    31. 31. BS 8878 About BS 8878 BS 8878 Web Accessibility Code of Practice is a process-oriented standard created in the UK to allow organisations to: 1. Understand why digital inclusion and accessibility makes good business sense 2. Embed inclusion responsibility strategically across key job-roles, and into key policies 3. Follow a user-centred production process which identifies the key decisions which affect inclusion and which are taken in a Web product’s lifecycle 4. Adopt an informed way of making these decisions 5. Adopt a way of documenting these decisions to provide a log for assessing accessibility risk & proving conformance with BS 8878 6. Synchronise these activities with similar processes for the inclusive design of non-digital products "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 31
    32. 32. BS 8878 BS 8878 and Other Standards BS 8878 adds a framework to technical accessibility guidelines like WCAG 2.0 to ensure all aspects of an organisation’s activities which impact inclusion are covered. These include: • Procurement and selection of production tools and CMSs • Outsourcing production to third-parties • Project management of inclusive production • Assessment of accessibility risk and impact on budgets • Selection of the more effective testing methodologies to assure accessibility alongside usability • Governance of inclusion across a programme of Web production projects "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 32
    33. 33. BS 8878 In Brief At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their product, its specific audiences, and a clear, researched understanding of the contexts in which those audiences will use the product. In the light of this research, organisations can then make highlevel decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they wish the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of making it accessible to that degree. From there organisations are advised on the relative costbenefits of different testing methodologies for them to use across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were aiming for. "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71 33
    34. 34. BS 8878 In Brief At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their product, its specific audiences, and a clear, researched understanding of the contexts in which those audiences will use the product. In the light of this research, organisations can then make highlevel decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they wish the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of making it accessible to that degree. From there organisations are advised on the relative costbenefits of different testing methodologies for them to use across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were aiming for. 34
    35. 35. BS 8878 What Next? “Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting accessibility successfully within a large organisational structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging focus on defining, implementing and documenting the process of creating accessible Web content, process standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible and given greater support at a global level. Complementing this, we need greater sharing of success stories as narratives of problems to be addressed, constraints within which work had to take place, what was done and the measurable evidence of impact in terms of positive experiences of disabled people - and of other users.” From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 35
    36. 36. BS 8878 What Next? “Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting accessibility successfully within a large organisational structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging focus on defining, implementing and documenting the process of creating accessible Web content, process standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible and given greater support at a global level. Complementing this, we need greater sharing of success stories as narratives of problems to be addressed, constraints within which work had to take place, what was done and the measurable evidence of impact in terms of positive experiences of disabled people - and of other users.” From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 36
    37. 37. What Next? But What Can I Do Next? You can: • Take an area which poses difficulties in ensuring WCAG compliance e.g. • Your institutional repository with author-deposited PDFs but no ALT text for images in MS Word master • Your VLE, with the limitations provided by the vendor • Your plans to digitise lectures, but no funding for captioning • Your MOOC plans and the accompanying uncaptioned video resources • …. • Use BS 8878 16 stages to document your plans, stake-holders, user engagement, constraints, policy decisions and sustainability plans 37
    38. 38. What Next? Conclusions To conclude: • There is a need to think beyond the digital resource and the digital tools • You should engage with a wide range of stakeholders in enhancing accessibility • You should also consider alternative perspectives of 'accessibility' and disability • It’s OK to reject 'universal accessibility' and focus on 'accessibility for these users in these circumstances' • WCAG is still relevant, but shouldn't dominate • BS 8878 provides a standard for further work • There’s a need to share experiences in use of BS 8878, especially if it’s to develop beyond the UK 38
    39. 39. Any Questions? Note an accompanying blog post is available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2013/11/29 Feel free to ask questions, leave comments, etc. on this post. 39
    40. 40. Book available from BSI Press in Q1, 2014 for information, email: book@hassellinclusion.com
    41. 41. Licence and Additional Resources This presentation, “Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!” by Brian Kelly, Cetis is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence Note the licence covers most of the text in this presentation. Quotations may have other licence conditions. Images may have other licence conditions. Where possible links are provided to the source of images so that licence conditions can be found. Slides and further information available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/ 41
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×