Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines


Published on

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines, Sloan, D., Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H. Fraser, H. and Phipps, L. WWW 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland 22-26 May 2006. …

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines, Sloan, D., Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H. Fraser, H. and Phipps, L. WWW 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland 22-26 May 2006. Conference Proceedings, Special Interest Tracks, Posters and Workshops (CD ROM).
Also available at

Published in: Technology, Design

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Beneflt of Accessibility Guidelines David Sloan Andy Heath Fraser Hamilton Digit Mode Access Grow Auiod Research and Cons-uling Designed for AI Lid University ol Dundee 51 Peterson Cloee 109-1 1 1 Famngoen Reed Dmdoe. UK Sloclisbnooe. Sheffield. UK London. UK 044 1332 385598 +44 7861 955997 +44 2078 417417 dsloan@cnn¢otlng. dunoee. ec. I1: Andyl-lealh@axelrod. plus. com iraeeradesignedioralcom Brian Kelly Helen Petrie Lawne Phipps UKOLN Department at Computer Science JISC Enacutlve University of Beth Untversfiy at York Beacon I-louse, Queens Reed Bath. UK Yort. LK Blismi. LK ~u1ns3a3943 9441904434336 v441179545o78 b. I:etyQulooin. ec IA: helen poUio@cs. yori: .ac IA l. phlpps@jlsc. ec. uk ABSTRACT I. INTRODUCTION We argue that while work to optimize the ncoeufliility of ibe Wotld Wick Web through the publicntion and disrclinntion of I rug: ofguidelincs '3 ofgreal ixnportanoc. that is also II: need for I more holistic appmacb In rnnximizing the role of the Web in enabling dishled people to access ilibrrrutiun. services and cxpcnenca. The pcrmtmtly Lhsappotntingly low levels of usability of Web couhrul for Ilisableil people indicates that Ibciuing on the edopuon oi‘ acczsubiliry guidelines by content autiioni. tool developers and policy malum is not mfiident for a truly irrctuanvc Web. 11Iis appmecla fails to aelmouicdgr the role of the Web or an enabler in a broader context and may will: cratiw: us: of Web content and cxpcnaicer to enhance social inclusion. Using e-learning as Ill example. and describing cutem netmhn rievelnplncdx we present In fiurncwotk that will guide Web audio“ and policy Inks’: in nddrasing accessibility in a high: level. by Ikiirrlrg the conic. “ in which In Web resource will be used and cunsidmn; lww but cxulmg or new airumariws may be combined to entrance the a: I:¢ssibibly of the lllfillnilllflo and services provided by the site in question We Ikonrnuuare how guidelines such as those pmdiucd by the W305 Web AI: -:cIIulnlrr)' Initiative have a role to play within this wider context, along with nicuslm and um profiling inltielivrs. Categories and Subject Dencrlpton H. S.2 [liar Interfaces — Evahratnwmctlroiblogyl. K.4.2 [Seem lulu - Asustiw Iecirnnlnpei for persons with disuhilitiesl General Terms Maeunemenl. Docuineulaliuo. Humm Foams. Siandardizelrun. lxgai Asp: -us. Vmiiatiort Keywords Web ecxcssitsilily. people with disabilities. WAI. WCAG. guidelines. methodologies. nicodua. couIenInl deaipi. Panama to euiceoignlurlrud copces ofnll orpnrtofrlusvmrk for personal or clnssroonr use is rented without fee provided rhl copies It not and: at disliboed for profit or cmrimaciai advantage and that (opts; but lbs rrotin: and the fol citation on the first page. To cqry clbmnva. or npubfih. to me! (I menus or to redistribute to Hm. ruquiru prim Ipvcifir; prfinion aldfw a in '4A or VlI'’'20tlru. 211:)-Zrurh May 2006. Edinburgh. UK Copyvlglll moo MM I-$9593-214 I . uos~cIs. ..ts. oo. Aeeensilility of the World Wide Web like Web) in end uteri. regmilesu of ability or bro-Insing qivirorimeni. is widely accepted a I finrlnmanal requieniem if the Web is to reach its true potential as an enabler For the widest possible uudiarce. Indeed. the rights of Web users with disabilities are becoming cw: more defined in anti-duuininratnon policy and lcgidnlrun around the world [49]. Unfonunrrlciy audits have regularly moan that the accessibility of Web sites falls Iton of an nccqneble iewl. This is despite an ever-iii-musing quality of owl: Ihni has 20% into: 0 developing tools to support Wdr content prtwidenr in utboriig accessible material and cvniontion of the uceusibilily ofcuutenl [461 0 dcvelopnrg assertive lechrologiu for end users. ‘belie! hnnlw-. m or aoltwam. aihplatimo or cxlmsirrns to browsers. or savor-side uamfomaloon tools to allow duablod people to overcome or reduce the lnyocl of their lmpmmwm when interacting with Web comm. o disseminating the imponuncc or. and best practices III. accessible Web design. 9.; [3-l]. [44]. The reasons behind the coeitinuing disqrpointing levels of Web content accunbilily have been widely Iiscussed lc. g, [I3]i. What seem clear is tiInL while still a factor. a lack of alumnus of the importance oi‘ an-uribulriy an-IIInIg: n Web developer: and site couniussiooers is no longer ibe predomirrenl issue. A key challenge is effective and eppwpvute mplemenlatiun oi‘ axtcaiitclc Web design techniques. Other dollar; -ca include the perceived complexity and cost of the unit of Hiding a Web site aweseiblc ml]. and also the need to umnIbuguouIl)' dctioc what is actually nicam by ‘ocoessit-lc‘. understand when is required to develop a Web site to he considered so have met the definition. and to evaluate it each 151 one: can judge whether it has met iii: specified level of accessibility [.1]. From the disabled Web user": perspective. corqrlicaning factors include the browsing and usistiue technologies In-nilarble. the our‘: ability in Ise that: technologies aid the Iliflaence been-em the technologia Irvalablc and those most qrpvoprile for the user’: rrecrh.
  • 2. 2. W3C. WA] AN D WEB ACCESSIBILITY 2.1 The WA] Model of Aceesslbllty As the body responsible tor the coondrnnation of dewlopmmns no Welt standards. the Wolld Wide Web (‘orttortrnnm (W3C) has taken 0 lead in pnurmtirut accessibility of the was for disabled pcople. not only as Wdi users. but also as Web suitors Since IW7. the W3C’: Web Accessibility laitiative [WAN its been extremely active and my sna: eesnl'tl both in ruhirng uwnntant-.1: ut‘ the itportance of Web accessibility and in developing in nnodel which can help orynnsinlions to develop accessible Web tuosnteen. This model pnwidrs guidelines which can be used to ennsnnre that Web tuntsnron: nnre optirnnelly accessible. in sell as intlnuleing the tlevelopnrnernt of other W3C standards for Web hnelnrtologies. 11se WAI promotes a tripartite model of ancecsailnslnty. win the goal of universal Web ntccessiiility inn nlteony provided by tinll oottfomsraee with acln of three components [7]. 0! punticulat relewsnnee to developers ot’ Web taouroa is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines tW(‘A0l [52]. WM has boat sucecssltnl in promoting the WCAG around the world. the guidelines hnnvinng been adopted by many organizations. enrlnnoed by the Web Slnnndsrds mnnernent [55]. Ind are itcteningly being adopted at r natiornnnl level [49]. In the WA! nmtlel. the WCAG is eonwlemmted by accessibility guinklinsas (or browsing and access tea. -lnnologies (the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines UAAG [5l]l and {or tools to ntpport creation of Ww content (Atstlsoting Tools Accessibility Guinlelinsa. ATAG [46]). This approach oclonowledget that in addition to providers ot’ Web content. developers of authoring tools aid of luowsetnt. medis players and access teclnnnolocies also have nssponnsibility tnwmnis the provision of ueeessnlnle Web oomeltt. 2.2 Slnorleonntngs of the WA] Model Althoufln WAI has been tery successful at A political level, and to it lnnrye extent at a technical lesel, the authors feel that lie model of Wdn accessibility athjntod by WA! is flawed. This is due partly to the nature of the WCAG Ind also to the overwlnelr-‘nng tbninnntiorn of the tole of WCAG with respect to the olha pridelinnss in the accessibility ofornlitne in linrrnnnttorn and servions. 2.2.] Limitations ofWCrlG Shortcomings of the WCAG have bean noted by a nnnlnber of ootrtnncstanlnrs leg. [ll]. [12]). and doetlnnented by the authors [25]. la lmsl‘. these include: 0 1‘lteeutlcaI astan ot‘ the unnttltlass. currents guidelines pnuruotc the use of open. W3C standards. and ignson: widely used proprietary technologies. many of which have nude significlnt inqntowrnents it accessibility support in recent yarn. 0 Ilepundeneles II other WA] giddines: eonfonnnnnoe of a site to WCAG may not be entonnfln to estate optinnnl accessibility if this conformance results in a site that reqtnies use of an UAAG-colfurnnnnnt browser. 0 Anhlgtlly ol’ the gilelhes: It is well tlocuntentonl lhnnl there inn is ssgm‘l'ncanI degree of subjectxvity in applying marry WCAG clnecltpornnts: and some on ooadnrional on levels of stppon ion a lecture across browsing technologies. 0 Coonplulty at the gnldsllrm: The onnsnxizationn of the guidelines leach Ivitln connstinuernt checkpoints of tuning priority) means than one w(‘A(J can be dlflle-It to uadetsurnd and apply no in particular sittunttots We expect this to be remedied ll tinnnre versions of WCAG. but interpresationn dilllctnlties may be hard to avoid 0 Logical luvs ol the gtnlnlrlauz The content of some WCAG chodrpoims is secln that they nnre open to quite extreme irnsenntettnlinru. 0 Level of Innlerslaarfing af aoceninility hues reqdred: Gives the range in tuition] abilities of the iuterntlsd annxbeoce (anyone who creates Web content). there may be sigmllarnt eognxitrve demand on tndemandinsg the ptiaciple behind a specific checltpoirnn. nnnd applying than inn a particular situation Indeed. the lonmst of the WCAG was found sesetttl years ago to present deselopens with problcsnts of innupretunion [to]. At this point we must aeltnnswledge the ongoing ttwloprned ol' WCAG 2.0 [53]. We have eonfidennee llnnnt. when pdnlidted. WCAO 2.0 will adshesns ntnnnly of the problems higlnliginled above. We tttnn less confident that the reissue of: revised set ofgsnidelines will overcome line under ensues nnnltlnesaed in this pqer. 2.2.2 The dominance of WC/ lG Tlne WAI model also places sbgmfieunt Msponnsibility on andanssts to be aware of the technologies that most wait that mods. The need for improved uses nnnarenness. through better training arid suppon. us a point noted by the UK Disability Rights (‘onnnnissiorfs Formal llveitiptlion into wen» site accessibility [iii]. It has also been echoed by Irony developers promoting Web sttrtdards (:3. [J9]! who exprss fruatanion over the lscln of user awareness and uptake of staadnnrds-«nnlnrnnnuttt browsers and assislite todtnologies. of accessibility fenntures of browsers Arid operating system. Ind the reuniting inqnnu on the eflecniveneas of moves to prnrnnte nndoptiorn of Welt standards. Nevertheless. Welt dewloptss mnnnnin eonqnnntsfrwly powerlean to persuade ¢nd—oaers to adopt eunnfomnannn lnromning teeltnologiut The lack of «wanes: about asuistiw technology and more espslsle housing todnnolonty artunugsl the invader Web-omit population has been found to lie s sigtifmnn issue |3t] Developers ate limited to srnempting to provide bespoke oceessilcility features man as tum: -print style sheets [9] or audio- enuhled versions of their pages. for example tlnroogln Radspenka [37]. Since usage of UAJG-conttbrrnnnnnnr browsing techoologjss cnnnnnsot be relied tool. and unge of ATAG-ccnnfonrnnnnnt authoring tools earn neitha be relied too: not guarnnnscul to produce WCAG confonunattt contents. WC/ K3 rernntns the nnlnirnnate standard which developers must meet. Even then. accessibility problems may rerntnnio. as discussed bother to Section 3. 2.3 Allematives to WCAG The W3C process of dewlopsnng its "Reco: n:'nnendat'nutns". on the form at qnoclficstions us no lengthy. but tlsoroeglt and robust process. Involving dovmnrn exports and pdalic consultation. Yet evidence used to swponn decisions made, ton‘ ettnnnple inn fonuulsniag the WCAG. is non nude explicitly suitable as part of the guidelines on the uvportinng docennnenttutioa. and thus the gnntdelintes hose been criticized as Inciting annpiriesl evidence [32]. Some sets of guidelines have nnpplied the WCAG to I pnnticull’ envimnnrnneor. for example the IMS Guidelines for accessible e- lenrning [18]. hi addition. research-based gnidelina For Web aeeernsibilily and usability fur poops who Iwnnld appear to be
  • 3. caterod for by the WCAG. tnclriultur; disabled and elderly people. have emerged «wee recent years. leg. [I I]. [21]. [32] and [4511 Some ot these guidelines are hrocrdly in apeernent with the WCAG: some are more presaiptiue. while there are also situation: whereby cornparison of these guidelines may molt in potential eorrlliel baween the needs of specific rota groups. Even the fact that the reseueb loam: producing the above guidelines Ielttheleeeltouzryouttltewuekirrliclesalewelol rfimisfactiour wilt tire nature aul content of the WCAG. in particular with rupee! to luck of published supporting evidence for qtecilie drodpoiltrr. This utuatiori rvuiloreus the need for niidrl-its to be paroriwd to be useful and usable by developers - in terms olheiuuc credible. proving tuflkient iafortnatiorr on the consequence: of folloning tor ignoring) particular clreetpoittb. and clearly defining the scope of applicability of a particular elreekpoiit. 3. UNIVERSAL USABI LITY OR INCLUSIVE DESIGN? 3.] Aeceuibility? Or Usability for Disabled People? The relationship betwout xcenibiity and usability has long been a source afdioetudon. and as yet no definitive model exists [4]. However, it may be an ttruaeeeesary and artificial distinction in practice [I]. [44]. ‘Uri: is ilhstrated by 3 disntsiorr of the fiodmgx ol‘ the DEC‘: Formal lmubprttoo into Web Site Accessibility‘ I I3]. The results produced no telling cuttelltsions: I Some peobleruui eocouurwereut by disabled people -. -oulil not dually‘ he nrntebed to my some checkpoint oftlne WCAG. A WM response [50] argued that rruury of these problems could he eased by ruort-corrtormant our operas and authoring tools HOI'€’‘fl’. an euteetatioer Itat all disabled people ll! curnforrrurrtt user agent: is. we would urgtr. hopeleatly ideoliueie at the presaut time. not learn given that if a UAAG- conforrnartt user agent. exists, the litelirootl til rnany disabled purple would be urwnre of it. and have the means to obtain it, install ‘I and une it. Iould be low. 2. Some Web men were found to perform extremely well in usability evaluations uiuh disabled people. yet did not rtotet certain WCAG ebeclrpolots. What their: sites were announced some ooauoeeiuatou (e. ;. [S-tlt criticized the DRC for bailing as eurnples of best practice sites Irat did not meet basic conformance levels of the WCAG. Thus. the somewhat straage sitrattion emerged wttueby sits that uere found to be usable by disdtled people were nevertheless rejected hy Web developers as being iraoeessirlel The WCAO may imply that lidl ooofomranee will result in a rniwrxally eceeusibk Web site. yet the wry gm] of uuuiversal accessibility has been quseutnunieul. For enrrxrle. Newell and Ore; -or [34] aetnowleihe the limitations of uniseual accessibility by proposing a new approach at “ueu—scuroiti»e inclusive dcli, |'. tl'. while Nevile [33] describes the pmblarb that can thee to utteupt to create and provide uruiwasalty eoeesaiole reaouroeu. noting that: ". . . it is not conceivable that even the new guidelines (WCAG 2.0). ..wiIl solve all the problems. Perhqur it is just not aeuraible to expect such guidelines to uutzieipae every solution ltd prrwide [for "I. " 3.2 One Site for All - Always? The une~site-| 'or~alI qrpruadu to xeenilaility has. correctly it the authors’ opinion, largely cooquaaed the paeeption that aceeuribility car he aduievod through I separate ‘and-alone text- ooly Web urlte. Yet advocate: of tbe atngleaite approach haw shown a remerltalrle itrloluanoe ofottempu to use the Web to reach our to nrgtoaoit groups. tn particular people with serum learning ditfrcullin. and who my have roqolremuits quite distinct tom moi other Web users. For exarrple, a recent request was nude to a Web accessibility errutil discussion list for feeiiraelt on a rite designed for dtildren with severe learning dirabiliies. This request peoihoed foodbuek thameextreuuely critical oftbe appearuoeeurul oouuerut ofthe site. Yet while the distinet lack of evidence-butel guideline: for Web site design for people with leaning disabilities has been pointeul out |8]. [39] the reaction to the email request indicated an expectulour that the resultant tale tluoolul be equally understandable and usable by the martian oftbe list at melt at by the target audience. We argue thut this appurs to be a prime euumple where the web can be used to enhance the quality oflife for a specific group of disabled people ulrrmrdt providing iuforuriation and entertainment. and timiliurting cormrraniutinru. yet in a way that may present other people with significant usdrility problems. Here. the was in enhancing accessibility fix disdrled people — Inn not tltmtrgr a universally accessible Web rate. In tact. there appears to be iuwreanrrg are of solutiuris such as text-tramoortm, text-to-speech lieutturtts and attentive style about to provide on-the-fly alternative {onus of one single site. This could he seen u a realization that designing one WCAG cooforrmot site for all. and leaving users to udopt IMAG- conforrruoruu brtovrneru. is not a realistic approach at the present tune. 3.3 Context of Use Designing digital systems to meet the requuirernents of the people who will be using it is the classic approach In usability. One can group requieertenu into several categories. ircludmg: I User eluuetaelistiesz the abililiu land risabilib'es‘t oftlrie target users including perceptual. cognitise. motor. In] I’-rguirnie abilities. - Domalareqitimnxutm tuetasltxlhetooeultobesuvpotteul. grow. social and cultural dynauuics. eommruaieauioo patterns. euviournreuuel factors. and so on. 0 Technological requirements: such as ursuilability oi hardware and software and the waihbility of plug-ins 0 Pertiarmauree requirements: {or exaumle. last success rues. task-eointleuioo tines. slislaetion mime. and quality of task output (e, g. corqtrdrension ourloorrra in an e-lemming urviormeurtt Taken together these categories at‘ requirement: are utten called the "context of ore” I2]. Uhrrnouly the stakeholders associated with a particular digital system warn that system to be *sueeetslrl". Success. however. can only he identified and measured it rquiremenu such on tuese ere identillul and. ideally. epwified. ‘lhe lsey measure of a digital system ti whether it fits its context of use: whetba the people for whom it is deuimed can no: it with acceptable levels of usability. {or the tasks that they need to do. it the social setting in which these tub take pIt¢. using the technologies they have av-'lab| e.
  • 4. We argue that only by taking this approa. -h ~ by considering the context of use — can mearnirngfinl and prothnarve disotnaniona he conducted about the aoceaathiliry or usability of a ntysaant Using eotttexl of use as a toenndnnurlt for stnecees also elirnnimntes the illogical situation in which some eoanmunnntori leg, [54]] neiut sites that are usable Ivy dirahled people (ie. 61 the context oftase) but do not meet specific WCAG eonfomnance levels Appropriate "fit to context of us" should be the goal of developmt, with I recognition that guideline can serve as utmost to this and. but that eonfortmnoe to guidelines is not iuelfthe end. 4. LEGISLATION AND POLICY We have irntrotlumd our argument for nduliltg ar. -cesaibiliny based on context of use. llmnneva. policy and leghlnriorn around the world appem to look fawnufily on WCAO an a stink. annttnoeitatiw and trnatflnignnotns measure at antccstribilaty. Ualonvanately that can lead to problems in torrm ol atonmnptionnnn by dewlopens and Web site providers of ll ‘legal teehnual mitnimuIrn' for oooeaiihtlity, and III terms ol the rcstrietnona that man a policy may place on what can he ptnlntialned oelirne. but does legislation introduced to protect the rights oldiaahled people around tlne vmrld actually require every Web resource to be tnniwrtially aoceminle‘! It would appear not. at lent! not in the UK’ The ten: of the UK’: Disability Diacriuninaitna Act I995 bars on the rights of ernqnloyea (Pat III. the prtwision of goods fieilitaa and uenicn (Pct [ll of the Ann and of para-I6 etltmttitm [Part Wt. No trnention its ninth: tnfthe Web in the turns of the legislation. Comtnununtators haw pmorally aimed that the with an lnltcly to be covered by the Au. «penalty giwu cane law that exists in Australia. under similar legislation [39] and we lnan-e no reason to ammo this position. What is an». -Icssiagiy apparent though. is that while the provision of In service may equally he Inehiewd through the Wet: or though other nnneanna. the ltey reqoirennnent is to ensure that access to that service is not tirade unreasonably diflicult or inporaible for someone on account of their dinhility. In runny cats. an aooeasinle Web line would indeed be the single nrntm apprvpiale way of providing that swine. and under the terms ofthe UK‘: DDA. a “reaoendnle adjutnnetnt" for a service provider vaontltl he to noise their service available through an optionally aoeetnsihle Web rite. But toe those who may still haw: trouble using the site. there would scan to he scope to provide alternative owes; to the same service. eithet through an alternative Web interface. or by nnonn-Wet: means. While there are accusationna witlnin industry that the DDA does not provide Wdt file dnelopenn and eorntutissioners with anoufli iafonnaionn on vahat coastlines lawfni practice, we sntupeet that wlaarineededisahetlaexplutatioaofvrhatistnacannby “reuondnle adjulnrnls‘ — aaniplu. or. in line absence of use law. hypothetical case studies may help. Ultnrtnrntely. by not nelminng to the WCAG or any ollur technical detlnition of an ‘accessible’ — and thus lawful — Web site. we ingest that the UK‘a DDA is an exanxnle oi legislation that cneotrt-agar a cutnlesuoal approach to acoeaulnslnl)‘. ‘Ila: concept! of "reaaondcle adiusuntnmt“ as itntnodtaml in the legislation is worthy. but could be crnlnanocatl by more guidance. Organizations should ideally develop policies that are themselves ootrannetnaurate with the resources available to them. demonstrating those policies or plants ("reasoenalnle adjutrrnernlr-"l the on-ganizltion had in place to make their Iuvices accessible. TIIS position has been underlined by the publication. at Martin 2006. of In new UK standard focusing on good practice in the ootmnasaioniag of aeoanrilnlc web men [51 This doeumatt advises. but dog not specify, nnirninutta ootnfortmtice levels; crucially. it also ennphnnaizcs the need for an aoceatihility policy to he editlishetl for every site. allowing site dimers to explain and he accountable for their qnpmaeln no uecessivility in hearts of the she‘: context 5. A HOLISTIC APPROACH 1'0 AC CESSIBILITY 5.1 A Holistic Model for E-learning Accessibility In our prtnnnnotinu of a contextual approach to aeoasiniliy. we now look to the e-leaning field for art nanple of how a holistic approach to accessibility can be ell’ecl'rw. -ly applied. 11:: developetnent of at-oenalnle vleannmg ranounva has adtlithmal ootmlexities over the developmant of eontvetnliohal ittformttiontnl Welt resources As described by Kelly «-1 ml. [24] e-leaming developers are [need not only with the ohlheultiea of tnnndersuanding and invnerpretinng WM guidelines. but also ensuring that the resources implemcnnn an appropriate pedagogical appmadi. With itnfnrrnntttional resources. the aim is to ensure that the televnnm infornnatiotn can be easily accessed. Wilt leaminn «source. borne-va. this approach could mean leanters are provided with Inna. -rs rather than having to think careful in orda to count: up with answer Iorthesrnselvn-.5 land it is In legitimate part of the leanning process for students to initially Irive at irncoerect anstwesl. The qnpaoaoh to t. -—leat1nn'ntg ocoaicilnlity ttesdopcd by Kelly er al. argues that the locus nthould he on the learner‘; needs and that. rather than mandating that individtnl fuming mvouroa must he uninenally accessible. in is the harming ourmma that need to be accessible. In this blended approach. it can he perfectly legitirnote for inaccesnalnle digital learning remtnnzes to be replaced by learning Ifnich Intakes use ofphysieal reaotleee. This qtpmaeln is lined on regxding the Ieamer with tlisalnilitia as an individual with an alternative learning style. rather than the medical model implicit in the WAI appmaela. which focuses en tire (liabilities themselves 'itli1'Ii nanny ethntmional institutions. specially in theUK. lnIentIedkaninng. wlidt¢xploitsbothdigitalund plsysiml Inning resntln: es to provide In rich edtaeatioatal experience. is groaning in popularity. The holistic tmdd for e- leanunng accessibility reflect: In wider approach In teaming and tlaeufon: is more likely to In embedded within the dewlopmernt otleaeaitag nuontn-es. The holistic model for e~leatniIng accessibility also recognizes that other eoatentnnal aspects are itrtponatnt. As well as pedagogical issues. factors such as rvailnlnle resources, orgunizarion unlture, etc. [and usability. as discussed previously) are also rel: -varnt faelona. as illustrated in llhare I. 5.2 Application of the Ilollatle Model The benefit of the holixaic appmech is demonattnted when considering the importance of atultirnedia in accessible learning and teaching. While it is ilnportannt that rich media is provide with appropriate Iteeesrilnility (canines to compensate for sensory or physical itrqnairrnenls. it is equally inrunontannt to take advantage of the potential 0! the very use of rich media in etnhnncinu tine
  • 5. accessibility oi‘ the tanning environment to people with specific leomiiig ditliailics [39]. Figure I: llolhue Model for 8-Leaning Aeeeaalillty v -- . -, "0 'r—___7£_ .1‘/ ” “. J{’___. ' y i I--v-volt """" Float J l‘ ‘thnaainaa rat. .. I‘ I, As a speclllc cuniple of an application of tho holutic modal for o-teaming aoamilalllty and a comparison with the WM approach. we will -. -onsidcr the provision ol‘ slide niotemls siqiportmg a lecture or similar. iiucli as those treated by Miciosoll PoIterl'oin1. Micrnooll Powi. -rPo’ait is widely used for presentations in many learning situations Ptnvidiig access to Powalloiit presentations allernletstaecnalielptonatximixeacccastotlseresourceaodcan provideaiaielilaidfurre'isioa. lainanyorg; tniutioiisthe appauacli taken iuy be to siigily provide I link to the PowerPoint file - hit with this approach. tlie slides cannot lie viewed on platform; Irliich do not siqipclt the Miatosnll viewer. A lieu: approach is tliu Io provide actual to a HTML version of the slides. Air iiavirig. as lfl'Ml. from within l'ovwal’oinI mates nua- WCAG ooalfomainl HTML rawiirces. the WA] appmocli would encourage an of altmialiw oonvemua sottvuaiv I0 crvaw ooiifnmtairt HTML pages. or alternative pneouitation software. suit as S5 [30], Although such iipprocclics can enable a bcttct WAI conforntorsx wing to be claimed. it is questionable whether this will always lead to cnlnrtood accessibility benefits for the end user. A cluipet with this riiecluitsinie application ol‘W(‘AO is that it can lac sight of the aims of tlie preaailatiori. Piesenldiciri sollwate aid! as Poherfoiiu could be used for a vuiely ofnsaoris such as: 0 an aide nmnoin» For the speaker — and lliettclorc of [timed talc to ll)0ll¢ also was not at the presentation; or I A conlciii-ricli resonate poosiltly cniitaiiiiiin iafamntion out prmided in the spoken preiaatatiori [such as multimedia content. URLs. cu. -t Weaagiietliatiii lbe{imiulanoe. tliepreseisIat'aonlileaiaybeof little the to anyone not I the prueistation _ paliqis as a limited tvliveisco lat. In practice onliie in HTML forinu cannot be assumed to provide an equivalent oflhii info: -ntiilsiio given by the lzctum. and therefore in no way makes the etxperieinr prowknl try the leciarc ‘acccoilblei It should also be noted that olthouli prveaciitstioiinl sotvniit such as 85 make use of coiifortiioiu XHTMI. earl CS8. it is ipcstiooahle as to wlietlier iiucli presentations re as tisltl: us nliihni Pkiwerfoviril preiriiaiitions. l’owerPo’liL for exuiiple. has atiarlsamagrthiatextcanainornaticallyreaiaetofittbesuveen iisplay Iilieraaa whli $5 the views‘: needs In uiuitailly resin the ten (mil is not rule awn: llial infleiiala nary not lie iisplayeill. II should also be mild that liandoiits fiorii PuwerPoiiit presentations can be designed to provide usclhl notes when printed. aliens: this option in S5 is poor in conaiuisoit Aliltoufii both of these issues aflcct the usability oi the lcatiiatg iaoutcc. they are not addnasiiod in WCAG piidelines. Tecliitoloaical ilimvittioris. such as the use of Poduatina to aiqiport learning. may have a role to play in eiiliiinciig ucus to sisdi | I!Sfl'IlflllUl£ Wuh the gtovimli in the pmviian of widest aetvmrks at academic confeiuica. and the simplicity of crealiig Podcaals. weareaeeiriganinutaiseiitheiitliilaaa ol'PodtxIs of lectura. Such recording CII ckcrly ailunoe Ilse accunliility of tails. priming benefits not only for visually riqiaired tater! » but also ealiiincuig ocean to oiban konscally. lioimu tho lack of cliitlly Iii! lliir ilugxiialssm «I that WA] approach can laid to Podcaain being ropaitlod an lmralsing WA] puidoluiics: transcripts ol Podcasu are not normally provided ll‘ooc wishes to ptirsuctlte “on: WK‘ tecliitologica" divective to on cam. -rite. there is an additional issue wberelay Podcosts typically nail: use of the proprietary MP3 foriiiat miter tltaii. sly. on open ‘OHYII such as 0“. An qiplicatiou of the holistic model would Iecogiize that eiiliancing llie accesibility oi’ the pitaiiritxion iv. -source: will be dcpentleiit on the rule they phy: lliiit Ilia non-compliance ut‘ ll'l'Ml. unions of melt rasoiitcis don not naceiiaiiiily lead to omnaihlllty piolaleini: that Ila: usability of the pmsmiatiori n a relevant factor; that the uaatnlay of hanlcopy pmiinuu is a iclcvant tocsor and that it can In baiellcial to users if alterituise multimedia temioiis of proacamitioos are provided. esui if such enlinnoanciits tail to coiiiply litlly wit: WCAG giiidclincs tlsemeelvcs The main point to he made is that it is the etrpaicnce of lisheniiwfseeitig the lecturer vilticlt dionld be iiooesdile ratha tlmilbearnpliasiviiiclicanlieplacedonaddruainglhe acceiaiihility of lflML versiiiua of the flidai which iaiillit from a llItt: lsI'tisl. ic aiipleinaitatioti of WCAG giiidelirieit In such a case. ariiueappruptiatealoernsfrveriaglulieanasdstiorvuleo recording of tho lwtuni plus taut transcript or captions and audio dcoatptioas Oi‘ course. the resources required to crate multiiicdia olierniitivcs and oonupotirlinu accessible alternatives may impact on the altility to provide the imiltimeiia. Th: piiiairy role of this exiinxilc. tliottfli. is to show how the efieciivusas of the accessibility ariliiliai depuids on the cmiteat of use of the preaamation. 5.3 The Role of Mctodata - Personal Needs Profiles, Resource Dellititloiis and Other Standards A promising approach In the problem iimia in tho [MS AooaisforAll hurls [I9]. [20]. This idea the qaproadi that an accessible oincomc needs to be provided not by A single universal resource but by a collection oi related resources sdoacd and adapted to match the roquiterneats and ptclercacca of that user in that particular contest. lb: basic notion is than each use has a Personal Ncarls Profile that can contain ll itttirioci of clifii. -rerit personal profiles. each for l diflerem identified context. such an "AIVorl: ". "lnllieflym" and "LateAtNifiit". Each profile ooiiains of a set of ‘l'ui'ii: tional" pn. -faences. which contain stanilai-iiiud deai: r'qitioo. s olreqiirurieiits Ear particular lianlware. content or coritml niecliaisiaui that the user roqiires or prefer: in that cotitexs.
  • 6. We stress that the intbrnrntiorr oontairod is not medical but is hmetional. For cxanmle a profile may contain information specitying that a user needs to have courcnt whee no essential infortnttion is encoded with colour alone or the user needs to use a saeeri reader such as JAWS with specific pararnetas tor speech me or inert "Sticky Keys" to qierue the keyboard. Matching metadatn is associated with each piece of content (Web page or Web page eornporieml. With this inferrrirrtion. mil consent rrppatoprinely labelled it is poasflrle to collect and aggxegple resources with alternative: authored to nuke those returnees oocessirle in the rpeeifir: cortex! rttatcld to tire user‘: frtnctiortrrl profile. The basic oorrrpurrents of this qrpruodr are shown in Figure 1. Ffitire 2: Using Personal Prolles and Resources Pinon! Neath all Fhefaeaees Stlctneti . »-{-"'; .""‘ Corded (clearing and client isel .4 1‘-an-r -at . |_ smug rt. . , l : h IICI II US r‘ . ’**'’V ‘l“““-‘. ‘.2-it | ' 'rfiI| lcIIIlI profde Mal-dab '~ . lbllltn (‘we _. ... ... more The “Application Profile" in Ffiare 2 are antler development and show him Reaoaree Description Metadala can be used in intetoperfilewayswilhthetvvormstoormraanlyr-ode-learning resource rnetarlnta admin. The application profile of the IEEE Leaning Otryeets Metadata standard rLOMi [17] is being rhzseloporl by (‘EN-ISSS Learning Teulnologies Wotltitop [S] and a Dublin Cone Mrtadattr laitiatrve [DCMD [I4] profile is under development by the Dublin (‘ore Accessibility Woricing Group [IS] These pieces of work are being developed in dose collaboration so that they will irteruperue. lnhaent in the Resocme Description Maarlata model is the concept that an original rtaoatee could have arhptrrtiorrs authored aeparaaelysoaatoaupporttlteverycuraatroarrtaeeuen-lrere rsoumes such as Wdr pages are amhorerl by I person without specialist accessibility hrowlerge and are then made accraraflrle [or some real context by the provarron of atternatlsu and services try a pawn or oqnraizatsoa with speatle accessibility expertiae. The rraztadata stardard ways to deamhe the access morhlltles at B recount touch as "vrsrnl“. “audltor~{’. “taett| a"). adaptation lot those tltlth as specific oqttion ldnrh for visual modrlitiest and ways to reter to and relate the physically separated parts. With this model the requirement that all authors have detailed oooeasirility knowledge is minimized and accessibility expertise can he dnwn from specilifls avtrilflrle. A possible irtnarree of latest tuaions of the Aoeaafotml rnetarlala wurlt showing it resource and some alternnisu is given in Ffiare 3. In the diagram. the resonate "lcnowrr" about some of the alternative arlrptationa that are avrrildile because it has URL pointers to Ill! !! ["haaAltr: nat'rve"). Sornotirrea an alternative is known only in its own Ion] context as in the we oftbe captions alternative for the ararlrtory component. Allanatrvea can be used as aupplrmcrrtary or replacenranta and not shown m Ire llgurc is the less common case where a resource can contain alternatives within itself (for example as with a video that has cannons that can be switched on or om. Altemativea would be selected ttora those at-ailahle to matelt the preferences and rcquirurieots in the Personal Ncedsprotile. Fkrrre 3: A Paulhle Aet-euForAll Instance ha Iifilh lultn Q. .. (.3; _ , . -nu. .. _ _ Inna AZQQH Vvndlira‘ Ks‘ . * T "‘°--4' Odin I ‘$10 —, :,- _T_ Alafétaiv L. ‘I- Apjbleiuflljuflt Xéjhin tuna-— via With accessible otrteuttus provided by rmllectaurs of retrorlrea urdamworaclapredaadnartehedtottreasetatorelosetothe tuna: ofuanlhen anrueofthooereaooruacortldbronlaw. some offline and some world be (and wit need to bet advices. such as the provision of a burnt: interpreter. Despite the deficiencies it the universal aooesribiliy model and the WA] WCAG guidelines some of the guidelines and checkpoints are of sortie value in this context in errsrurhg that onliie content such as Web pages are tr-ansforruhle to thee! some Personal Needs Regrieutertls and in paovirlirg tests of norm properties that can aid in the rrratehing and authoring of digital alternatives. More work is needed here arrongn the WCAG lens atrrlloolatorletemineararldocrlrtetlwltaldouartddorerrsot work in systenrs with distributed resources Thottdr the wort began in IMS. at time of writhtg it is being developed as a heel)‘ available 130 standard |2l| So hr the context of this wort: has extended to digital resource pveterences. requirunents and deacrirtioris hot it is notable that the Framework Document for the ISO SC36 work [2|] describes the concept of ‘hleorlerl learning". It is Io he horned that this signals intention to extend the hurl: to provide for description of tron-riuitrrl prefawrnts aid resources such as railway stliona. ltd non- digital altentrrtiw. -s tinclialing resources and aevvieul to rigitrrl raoutuer and services. In the amber! ’ View this is work that needs doing. Cloocly related work is tudertsay in IEEE Leaming ‘Technology Standards (‘ornniittee in devising rt Resource Aggregation Model for learning Education and Training iRAMLET) Ito] The oil! ot this mri is to show how dilfererit media and aggregation fonnats can be manned together so as to Icdtnically facilitate dis- aggregation. authoritg and re-aggregation at diqirrrate rerloutert and fortrun Intheopirionoftheanthorseitisuuetlmtokeayerrtrlealof work it the rlorrraia ot'techait'al stmrlrrnlr for e-leaning has had a “hard” erg: so that someone is either ‘doing e-lenmin[: " or “out doing e-learning‘ or they I’! “using the Web‘ or "not using the Web”. llsal promise: of learning ra much rneasaa and then: it a general need within the standards to sotten the edge and show how the surrdutlt can be used in holntic content when aorta: raooroea and services are digital and some are not. Accessibility
  • 7. in chiel‘ amongst the domains that tteelb that broadening of context. 6. DEVELOPING THE HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR ACCESSIBILITY 6.! An laelaslve Approach to Web Accuslblllty: the Tangran Model We have unwed the practical diflionlty of applying the WA] model lot‘ We! » accessibility. We have described the holistic uppmticlt for e-leaming and how it can be applied within the context of ctllural teaotlces. There can also be a cithural it experiential mmext to ittformutinnal resources [22] that is essential In preserve {or all users. We have deaaenlted our holistic model liar e-learning accaailiality. This model reflect: the wider approaches to learning which inderpm eurrmt pedagogical approaches. Altltough this model was developed wilitn an educational context. the approach is being developed to adtlress mote general pttwisiort of wet» tuottroet. For example. Kelly H of [26] describe the application of the holistic model within the context of cultural resoucer-t The i-Map senioe [43] dew. -loped by the Tale Gallery provided resources on the paintings of Picasso and Marine amted apeciftcally at visually impaired user: The approach taken was to focus on the requirements of a specific usa contnumity. tather than aiming to provide at on-vernal resource. The i-Map tietvice also tnalta use of a blended qtpruadi, pmvidiag azcesa Io raised nmpes cut’ the paintings. Another exatmle of an application of our ltytirid apptooelt to accessibility is the vecoanmesidaxion given to 11 public lilmry in the UK A presentation on a variety or IT deseloptneitts within the library was given including an example of a popular hlacromedio Flndi-based game aimed at chiluheo who visited the literary, 'Ihe response In a question of the accessibility of the game was that. although the game had proved popular. it ‘odd probably have to be removed. as it did not comply with the otglnitalillfl oomtuitmem to WCAG giidelims. Stitsequent discussion explored the purpose of the game. It was {uund that the game Mus aimed at panuht who visited the lllitary with yvtmg children. with the gene pnwiding dialndton for the children while their parents browsed the library. It was pointed out that, rather that attenqtmg to build an acootsdale version of the Plain game, an alternative approach could be the ptm'in‘oo of budding lilo-eh or other types of antes. Or appmtich therefore emphaizea the irnpnrtance ofthe inter and on satisfying the user‘: Ieqoiternertn. Such requieltienls will have a cuhural content to them We therefore advocate in qtprcneh to aoeessioility wltidt is based on social inclusion rather than on the ttolion oftltivetsal aceesibility. The tndusuw approach we advocate should lie open and cqttililc of latqgratlng with cootplenamtaty approaches developed by olhm. and is mutual on loemat issue. In addltloa to tcchnacal issues. we argue that the inclusive approach should teooptize that alternative ways at’ providing accessibility can be provided. either through use of accessibility rnetadata which can he used to provide resources which are accessible to a user‘; individual roquiretneltst or through a hybrid approach 03 initial idea was to develop ll jigsaw metaphor. However this approach "I-nplie-1 that then is it angle. comic! solinion. We live rejected this notion as we argue the need to recognize the contextual aspects as acceatttcllity and the need fol solutions which are appropriate to the putts-ulat context. Out proposed model makes use of a Tangtnm tnaaphor as an appmaclt for Web deselop-en. based on the Tatlgrun - :1 seven piece puzzle whete the object is to fonn I shape usiim al pieces. Using the WM model the will developer has very little llexiliiliy. A aaia of rules are provided for the developer to follow. Although some oftlie rule are undoubtedly useful. otlteu an llaned and. as he law seen. allavtative Qproaehes. not covered in the guidelines. tmy also be useful. We feel lien is a need to provide a wider set or guhhrltoes. but that the dwelopa needs tlaxilvillly in uhrcttttg gmdcltiw-.4 Much av applicable, Foe etanple. a Web dewlopar may cltoooe a sulmit of WCAO guidelines ta eonponctton with tatalnlity guidelines and relevant style guidelines The Tanfam tneaaphat makes it clear thu thee is no single ttniietral solmiun lnalead the develops can select releuett guideline in order to irtqtlunem it aoltnicm which is usable lo the target audience. and taking into account any access requiemetus. Welt developers will then be expected to make use of II rutge of gtndelines covering best practices ll areas of aecetsilnlity. utfltility and mlaoperalriltty. So for example it xinqile Welt site may make one of well-ealablulied guidelinnt such as WCAG aid Nielsen’: nsatultty heuristic-I I0 develop a simple solution. Flgarc 4: 11» Taagrata Model for Web Development 4!‘ ‘I r"1r In Figure 4. the 7 difletettt pieces of the Tcngttim puzzle each refer to a K! of guidelines. The metapltm is meant to he extensible: as ‘tell as WM guidelines, other guidelines may also lie used, audt as Nielsen’: ll) usability heuristics [35]. guidelines for design int specific user groups, ildl as old: people [32], or even guidelines on clarity of written content. for example [37]. A developer at‘ a more suphnticated Web acme: may require a richer wt of gnldellmu to call upon ‘Duo could include otganizationa guidelines such as use of ootponte logos and navigational teatum. guidelines on writmg style. ‘the developer will have flexibility it the apvptuach taken. and may choose 5 solution most appmptiale to the context of the application The aim of this approach is to prtwide a solution which vmximiaes the tuaefulnesa to the end tuner. as opposed to the current WAI approach tvltieh enontaagea rnattelatary appicatinn of a limited set of The tnelqiliur is meant to clarify Ilal the most appropriate solutions can be obtained lay eqgagitg with the users rather than simply applying a set of rules. We out see several advantages with the application of this model: 0 The model can he extensible (vie can make use of additional ‘piecea‘1. This allows the approach to be extended as. for example. new technologies bwome available (for euuvple.
  • 8. guidelines for use of accessible Maerontedia Flash or PDF can he irteorpotntedt. 0 1'ltemodeleortoovernenersll’l'neearibr’| ityandisnot Innited to Web accessibility. 0 The model can be extended to include real world solutions I The model can be extended to itclnrle Web accessibility issues which are not covered in WCAG «.3. the accernilaility ol’ hrd copy outpin ofwelt pagut. 0 The model ‘es twllatutted Iur use with Welt teauntvei nhieh are peroomliud lltoup use of act-essdtiliry naztadata Ithe model emphasizes the nerviee provided to the and inner rather than rodmdotl eoroponemst. 0 The model can be deployed oaore ll range of diflerertt legal syaerrn. I The model is neutral regarding teelutologiesi 7. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK We have desaibed a richer underlying fraartewort for accessibility which is based on the Tartgratn metaphor. Application of this approach will reqtie a wider fi'ame-n°ork of activiies. inehtding its-ther advice and support for bolt Welt deveiopas and policy rnakrnn. Accessibility researchers should also look to how then work can support I! contextual approach to accessibility. 7.! For Welt Developer: Using the eornponent: ofeuntext of tare irrtrodtaud in Section 3.3. Web developer: can establish context by prrwiriog answers to the following: 0 User character-irttu: who is yunt target audience? Wliat austniytrotteeanyooimleaatotholewlofexpmtnethr target audience have in the subject ma or the Web site? 0 ltornola nquhnnats: What is the purpose or the wee site? What sort of tasks do you etpeet users to be able to perform using the site? 0 Teehnology rerpalreenenta: What asuniptions can you rrnte an to the browsing and asnistive beehtology available to the target audience and their knowledge of that technology’! What would be the tradeoll‘ in using it mo-(X)HTML forrnat to deiver information or erperienou along with or instead of tXtHTMl. '.' 0 Pro-ettrtlng dtrrnattvu: What other ways already exist to provide access to the irrtonnettou or services pronded by the Weh site in queaion? What pre-existing assets (e. ; mrrltimodie clips. telephone information litter can you take Advoutage of to widen testers’ 0 Qttnllty ol alernatlvu: What other wtyr could be created to pnwide alternative mules to the some goals to which the site is intended to provide access’! What are the aocessiiliy (a other) barriers to necessity these alternative irtenns? Defining this contest allows the dewloprneot team to adopt an appropriate aeeculbilrty strategy - one that has the tomb of the tamper users of the site and the purpose of the site at heart. This on: then he used to detlne technical requirements that will allow the mom appropriate solutionts) to be erected. ulna appropriate guidelines to inform development. 7.2 For Policy Molten Using the proposed ftarnenvotlt. polieyrmltem can refer to promotion of a holistic approach to ueesailrility rather than mandateaxtrictoonformnrtcetonteelinieal standard luttmayoot in feet gnntultee equality. There is a ohager that if policy mandates Single-A WCAG eoriformatvre. that this will be all that otwanizatiotu Ivil eortsvder. to the detriment of the true owesalhiliry and matnlity of their services. Policy should ateounge intonnetion and services provided tlnooglt a Web site to he made or accessible its possible. and at this point may make reterertee to the WCAG. However it should also promote the use of other digital content. or even neat-Web uterine along side the Welt site. if doing In wold edtanee the oetenriltility ltd nrnbility of the service in question to specific 8""“P‘- Poliey should also encourage. rather than diseoorge. the are of multiple meter to achreving the same end goal - whether iuforinatiort. 0 service or spew. -the experience — where multntle routes might better serve different youpa within the target auuhenee. Pahape mot! irtntortamly. policy shotdd require documentation of the prone; ofdevelopmeat — ntelnditg those Itributes of context outlined it Section 3.3. and the oroociarion ofalternative router. to achieving the same end goals. This provides for tnutspnrency in deeisieot-toting and allows jtartilicatian of decisions that. without the availability of eorttettttarl inforrnation. rnight appear to be diacrintinnory. Tltere doer rernaln a role for ltltlfllflllll that more directly refers to minimum teehrocal standards. but the argue thto should refer to the proihmott of aotltvare and herdvvnte to support creation of and aeeem to Web content. To lte more specific. given the blurring of tie coueqrta of Web sites and War npplieotiotts. he would qualify this or covering applications ends the domain of the [MAC and ATAG. Kate: and Chtrhort [23] note the positive impact that the amended Section Stltt of the Reltalrilitntiort Act has lied. on major plates in the War tedrnology sector. in terms of impruverunts they have trade to neessibiliy of Web dtrthoritg aoliwnre ntd proprietty Web forum. 7.3 Using the Framework in Evaluation and Benchmarking One objective oftlte European Convniurion-funded Support-EA? -t project [42] is to detelop to ‘quality moth‘ — o pan-Europe accreditation that an be efitlied to Welt sites that him: reached e remmtized level of oeoanlrility. Given our arutrrnerttx about the importance of context. and the prineitle that it is the service or experience that bonld be the focus olattedion. not the Web site. we have naiotn renervdians about the iruplieatiotu of such a scheme on Web cortten that has been developed 3 put of: wide strategy to iirarrow the omnnihility ot‘int’omtation and IeI'it: r5. The tkaarewort we propose. on the other hand provides a more realistic way of assassin; accessibility. hy conoidaittg the Web site in context. By taking a contextual approach to establishing oaeeatihility. it also supports 1 more uslt-oriented approach to accessibility esnltuttiort. for example the lteuristie wellttltroufir for accessibility as proposed by Brnjnik [4]. and is in line with the Aooeasfomll strategy discussed in Sretlon 5.3. The contextual mptnneh also lends itself to docinnenring the approach talren by the site providers to accessibility. Doeurnentiig decisions taken from at aecariltility perspective is a tranqtaratt deutoostntiort tht accessibility has been considered throughout the design lifeeyele. This may also be an important step towards demorntnting that developers have been prunctiw it taking rtqta to it-nwure that Illfilfllfifll dlomnnttatlori does not oeeta.
  • 9. 8. CHALLENGES FOR WA] in this paper Ive have otnlined an allanative qvpruueh ii: adrhessitg Web aooeuitility to that puvided lry WM. We feel our approach reflect: lie Imrlting practices used by Web dzwlopas who do not aim to adthru uaahility iastua independently of other (actors. and who are aetnaly aware of factors such as resources impllesuom and timeaalu which they will invariably time. We tool the approach also addressee the needs of the user who wants access to outline iuforrmtion. scrvires and experiences. and not singly a WCAG AAA conlotmarrt Web site. It is important to note that our model is not intended to replace the work atrial out by WA]. but to provide ll context for WM‘: activities There will mill he I need ii: WA] to continue the work of the UAAO and ATM] working gruqrr in order to ‘rupture the «polity of autlsoriug tools and user spans. Sitilarly. given 'Al'a lughpmfilathavuaneed l‘orWAltooontmturi. uouIreat: h and eduauional aetivitiet We feel. however. tint ‘WM should recognize the limitations of its model [or war accessibility. We feel that WAI should sunilatly roeoguize that there can he may amtroaeher to oddreuing uooestitility ierua. and that the guidelites developed by WA] groups should be capdile of hell; ‘integrated with other l]l| !hflCh¢tL Acknowledging the diversity of soluiotu which can benefit end user: should also lead to recognition the this diversity neeth to be relloeted u-itltin legal i'r-atuevmriru. llshouldbeuotetlthat nth attapptoacltltatsboentaltenbyotha at-tivltiea within W3C. when the U3 govemment thrdened the iutrodtutlon of the US Couttmttucatiorts Decency Act (which ad-heated the concerns over couteut uhich may be inappropriate for eliildreu) the response of WK‘ - an international membership organization - vans not to “C02: in politiul dehue with the US government. but to develop a technical solution (‘PICS - the Plait‘: -nu for lntanet Content Selection) which could be deployed at no uwroptiue level tits use could he msnbted within legislation or could be qtplied aemn purticttl-' sectors). At this point. we selrnmvledge the recent emergence of the ‘baseline’ concept as part at‘ the wort: by WA] too-snh the publication oi version 2.0 of the V/ (‘AG [46]. an eocourapug dewlopnxut in this area It is s welt-one: acltnowledgemeut by WA] that accessibility can. and should. be measured with contextual factors in mind. such as atttlemated browsing technology available to the target audience. in ministry, we feel that the underlying priteitle to WM‘: work should Ire to midar pam'e*4', rratiorr rather than to seek tmhtermi amce. m'bt'lt'r_r. Both pltrases Iveileet ritnilar goah. however ruivetnl actessitility irqtliu there is a single uuivenal oohttiuu vrhaeus widening participdion aehtowledges that there car he a variety of soltllitltut. 9. CONCLUSIONS We have argued that I guideline-bated approach to mecesibility For disabled people has a role to play in the drive toward: lamenting the Web as a meat: of reducing Inequality. but it can be hatrufhl it guidelines promote tie assumption lay‘ both Wet: site developers and policymakers thot. in every case. one fully oonfomuut Web site will be accessible lid uaehle to absolutely everyone. Accessibility guidelines become essential only when the role o! a Web site has been defined in A wider context ofproviriott of suviees. iufnrtustion sud eflteriertces. Taking the approach of the e-learning community as II cmrple. we believe that the goal of universal aceeatihility on the Web is inappropriate. and intend we should not he afraid to explore multiple routes to equivalent experiences. uhether those routes are nultiuredia alternatives. or tactile allemtttives. or whntemu rnigll be appropriate The Touuntu Model pnwides it metaphor for list aputmoeh. while the Aecesel-‘omll mandala vomit will gite a solid ihtneuorl: fa qtplying contextual access-ilrility. We believe IE tit’: approach will lead to more efleetiw policy and legishion. will support evolution and butchmmting cl’ accessibility. will give developers greater freedom to meet the needs oi‘ their audience. sud will allow duahled people to access iulbnustiou and RI’‘iIII. '§ III a tray that moi suits theu raquirernenta A more holistic aoptvazh to wet» accessibility — to utiria the Web near: ueceaoteclliology-isouetltotwillullrrwttietlfe-ltioreoch its true potartial. ovacmnittg the frusrutions of oonllieting user needs. ooutpeting Wdt technologies. nib-standard lrrowsitg technology and users who may never be fully more at‘ the technologies that can help them mod efleetively [arouse the Web. 10. REFERENCES [I] Alexandr: o. izoou win: is the mummsq» between usability aid accessibility. and vrha dtould it he? Presatled at 0ZeWAl 2005 Continence. Retrieved October 24' 2005: http; .'-‘deyalexauder. corttu‘presetttattouo'utal7iltt)-oeeesailnlsty-. ' [1] Beyer H. and Holtzhlatt K. 4 I993) Contextual detixn: defining tautomemeuired syaeru. San Francisco: Motusu Kattinonn. [3] Ilrajnik G. (2005) Engineering accessibility throng: corporate policies. Cortgesro Annual: AICA 2005. Comunii Virtnale dull: Rioaea alflnqlrua. dalla Foernaziorte al Cilaahtto. Udiue. Italy. Oct. 2005. Retrieved October 24" 2005; ham. ‘-Wwvadimi. urtiud. it"giorgiu‘puhlieatious. htutl: t*aicatl5 [4] Brajnilt G. (2005) Aeccsaibihty asaeatments through heuristic walhluoughn In: Proceedutgs of llCltaly 2005. Sirnposio so Huvnrm-Computer Interaction. Rome. Italy‘. Sept. 2005. Retrieved October 24" 2005: lvttp: .'-Vvwva. dimi. uniud. it. "¢iot'¢io'publicuIious, htutl#hciiva05 [S] Ilriixh Stunrhrvds Institute (2006) Publicly Aeoeuirle Specification: (‘aide to good practice in eonurisuioning accssilrle web sits (PAS 78). London: Britidt Stzndanh lutitute. [6] (‘EN-[SSS (Cumile European dc Nounstisallonl Learning Teelliologies Workshop. (‘EN Workshop Agreenteultb iaattdrrdst are suitable for download tiorn 3 link on this site: Retrieved November I" 2005: lvttp: .'-Nvwwcenortn hefisasrworishopvlta‘ [7] Chisholm W. and Henry S. (20051 Intenlepatdeut components of Web aoeessiriliy. Proceedutgar ot"W4A at WVIWZWS: International C roar» Disciplinary Workshop on Web Aecesdhility. New York: ACM Press. [ll] (‘Ill 1. (2002) Building Aowaslble Web Sou. lndianapoltx New Riders. [9] (‘hail (2D(I5l Big Start oh Chunky. A Lia Apart I91. Retrieved October 24'’ 2003: hitmzt«*www. nirtspan. eoru'attielesa'lowvision-‘
  • 10. [I0] Colwcll C. and Peuie II. (1999). A preliminary evaluation of the WM guidelines fix uroducing accessible web pages. In C. Bolder and H. Knows (Emu. Aslsliw technology on the tllredbold ofthe new milkninln Amsterdam: I08 Pveas. [I I] Cuyne K. and Nielsen I. IZIXII I Bewnd ALT text muting the net: easy In use fat user: wilt cisnlriities. Fremont. CA: Nielsen Nonnm Gmup. [I2] Di Bl: N. . Ploiini P. and Spetuni M. IZIKI-II "Unble an-esallwilily‘ lo the Web for blind were In; Ptoceedmy of Sun ERCIM Workshop; Um lnlaliu-as fut AI. Vienna. [I3] Disability Rights (‘onIniaaion. (2I)(I4I The Webzaccets and ilwkliion foe disahled people. Lomlon 180. [I4] Dublin Cote Meudntl Initiative. Retrieved Normeliaet I‘ W5: hup: ~'JIhblinmIe. oe| ," [I5] Dublin Cole Acceaihilily Walking (‘now Wiki Rnflriewd Novwnhee I‘ 2005: Imp; "~'dd: incou. org; 'ncee: sibiIitywiki. ‘ [I6] IEEE Leaning Tedmology Suuhnlo Coenninue Resource Aggregation Model for Learning Eohcuiun and Training: Maivity. Retrieved Nowmhe: I‘ 2003: hltpz. -‘-‘ieceI1nc. ocg'ug| Iflvllvhamlev‘ [I7] IEEE Stnndlvd fin Lutning Gnjecl Metndnu [Elil-I Std l484.I2.l"‘-2002. Retrieved Novufier I' 2005 illtpfiwwvr. ieeelIx. oey'wgI ZLDM [I8] IMS Giulia] Learning Conumhlu. Ouiulelines foe Develuping Accessible Leaning Applicauon. wuinn 1.0. Iummu October 24' zoos; mIp: .'mc. nmwgI: lI. u:fnIn‘guIdelIna-‘ [I9] Global La. -uning (‘onsonium Learner lnlbmution Package Amensihility for LIP Venion I (I Final Specification: Informnion Model. XML Binding, Bea Pumice Guide, Confonnmce Speeificnion. Use Cua, Examples. June 2003. Retrieved November l' 2005: I'ntp: "Mww. itugiobnI. otg. 'I| co¢ssioiIity [20] IMS Global beaming Cotuoflilm Acossfotkll Man-dab Speeiticatiun Vmion L0 final Specification: Oven-sew. Infonnuiun ModeL XML Binding. Bea Plachoe Glade. Eaumqnla. July 2004. Rvlnevod November I" 2005: mtp. .'vuww. irnsg0obnl. ovg. faco¢sdnIhy [2I] ISO [EC IT CI SC36 WG7 Individualized Adqmhility and Mceasihility ‘II E-lamina. Bahamian and Treining. Retrieved Nmembet I" 2005: | I!tp: ~'. 'cIIIli. jlcI0c36.oIj, " [22] Jnnlan P. (2002) Desipxing Pleuunhle Products. CRC Press. [23] Kate: 8. and Oulwon I. (2004). Counncuing design exclusion — An Immductioa I0 inchasive design. Soringcu. [24] Kelly 3.. Phipps L. . Swill EL (2004!) Dewlofnsg A Holistic Aapmndn Foe E-Lemming Aoouauflrilily. Canadian Jolunal of Lenrning and Technology. 2004. Vol. 30. Issue 3. [25] Kelly 3.. slam 0.. vhipps L rm: II. and Huniltnn F. (2005) Felting Slandevdinlion at Aeoomvnmhling Din-wiry? A Frumenotk rm Applying an WCAG in the Real Would. Proceedings of W4A at W'W2(I05: Inleuallonal Close-Dlmplinry Workshop on Web Aceenalhllhy. Now Yovk: ACM Frau. [26] Kelly 3.. Phipps L. . Howell C. 12005) hmlemanillc u holisie aopmaeh no e-learning nceeasisilily, In: Cook. 1. and Whiteloct. D. E: qIIor'maII1e finntiers ofe-Iumilr I|0lII¢f$. outposts and ligation: ALT-(' 2005 I20: Imemalionnl (‘onlereooe leseaecn Plocecninp. ALT Oxlont. [27] Koyuni S. . Bailey R . Null 1.. Allison S . Mulligan C. Bui| ey K. and Tolaon. M. 12003) Raenteh-based Web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved ouum 24* 2005: liq: :Jlhsww. usnbiliy. g«n-J'gnideliIesIguidelines_notice. hIn: l [28] l. nur. I.. Dualley-Spouungle A. and Oteenidge K. (2000) Improving Web Accessibility: A Sludy oI'WeIu1|um' I’en: eplIonL Compums and Hum-I Bellnviue. 2012). 26% 288. [29] Meyel E. (2005) la Accessible De-aim a Mylh? In: l’roccedIn¢s of '-M at WWWIIIIJS: Inlemntionnl Oms- Diafqlimly Wovishop an “id; Accessibility. New Yml: ACM heat. [30] Meyer E. A.. Meyer KS. [2005] S5: A Sinqlle Slnndalds Based Slide Show System: Rdrieved Ncveniaet I’ 2005: I'nIp: .'iNvww. meyetweb. ¢o1n'a’icvool: ‘s5»" [Bl] Muemsofl (‘on-pumnon 12003 I Acoasalsle Technology in (. 'oenpuLing—ExnmInIng Avnuennls. Use. and Future Potential. Rcnieved Nowmber I" 2005: Max. "-www. mic: mofl. oom-‘enable-iesan "phosezupx [32] Nainnul huilule on Afin; IZIXIII 0Id¢ adults and 'mfomum'on technology: A oonmendinln olncientific renenmh and web siie nccesflbilily gmlelines. Wndlilpon. DC: U. S. Government Ptinling Office. [33] Nevile L. (2005) User-eenlnul necenihilily supp-urud by dlnuibulal. cumulative anllx-ring, In Proceeding; of Auaweb Conference 2005. lleuiewd Novminer I‘ 2005: InuI: .'. IanswIa. scu. odnL. nu-’as0S. 'pap«I"mhnud'Im'I| n' [34] Ne-well A. and (items: P. (2000) User-Sensitive Inclusive Design. In: Proceedings of ACM (‘conference on Univenul lIuhiI’u)’((‘UU 2000) Adingtou VA. New Yuk: ACM Pteas. [35] Nielsen, J. [I994]. Heuristic evnlueiou. In Nielsen. .| ., and Mack. ILL. (Ede). Usdaiily Inspection Methods. New Yurk: Jolt: Wiley & Sons. [36] l'a4:IeIIo M. (2000). Web aooosutnlly foe people with nII$IIiIic& Lavmttwt. KA. (‘MP Boots. [37] 11» Phin English Campaign: Retrieved November I" 2005: Inu: :.'-www. pIuinen¢Iish. co. uk' [38] Ilendspenbee. larievd November I" ZIIIS: lmp: .'1-inrww. readgIeaker. conu‘ [39] Seenui L. l2002)I1cIunon OfCo3n‘n'n-e Disabilities in the Web Acccseibdlny Movcmcm In Proceedings ol Invenmioml WWW (‘oulweocu I I I. Honolulu. Hawaii. USA [40] Shaun D. . Stmfoni 1. ad Gregne P. I2006) Using mtiflnedin in silence the ncoeesibiliy oflhe leaning emvimnmem for disabled suulentsz reflections from the Skills fur Access project. ALT-J I441) Match 20%. Abinpion: Ito-mledse. 39-54. 14:] Sloan M. 42001) Web Aecessibilily and lb: mm. In: Paliwah. A. and Mouton. I IedsI‘l’lu Joumal of Infonmlion. Law and TecIIno| o1oIJIl. T)200I (2). Retrieved Mara: nu“ zoos: Imp; -'. 'a| ).warwIct. nc. nlcljill. -DI- 2."aIoon. IunI
  • 11. [42] Support-EAM. Rctncvod November I'' 2005: mtpru‘-‘nrww. supuon-amorg-‘ [43] Tale Online: Rclliu-ed Novelficr I‘ 2005: htxp-J. ‘www. Ia1c. nrg. ca| L-Snip" [44] Thmha 1.. Bohuun 9.. Bulb M. Henry s. up 8.. Swiuutgn S. . Udall M. and Waddtll C. (2002lCunm1:ctiIIg accessible val: Ii: -.5. Birmingham. UK: glnsluun. [45] Theofamn M. and Redila J. (1003) Ouhkli-an for Mctaaiblc and Unable Web 301:8: Ohmsitlg Una-s Who Work win: Scrum nudm nan». -mi ouoba 24" mos: hItpJ'-‘N-IinIx. |w‘cunIc: nI. 'popetsfh1n: uclionshImI pus] wsc moo) Auhoting Tool Accessibility Guidelines l.0. February 2000. llcuievcd Nowmlxt I" 2005: h| :p; ‘Mww. I'3.otyTR. 'WAl-AUTDOISJ [47] W3C (2005) Qualiou and AIISWIII dooul Bucliae and WCAG 2.0. Retrieved I‘ March 2W6: hup; ‘«'www. I-3.uIy'WAl. 'iII1u"w: ag20-|9a¢lin¢. piIp [43] MC (2005) Evalulion. Revolt. and Tmutonnmou Tools for Wdi Conical Aoccssixilily. Rcuievtd Non-qnkoa I‘ 2005: hIIp: I."w'I'.«‘WAl»'El. 'bxioxin¢loo| s.IIm| [49] W3C1Z005) Wcb Amcflibilily Iliiliflivc. Politic! mining to Web wocssbhility. Rnzricwnl Novclficr I‘ 2005: btI; I:. '-www. a'3.otg’WAL'Policys’ [50] W3C (2004) Web Accessibility lnitiuivc Sinu. -menu on Web Azceu Rt. -pot! {mm UK Disability Rights Com: -"mien. Rein}. -vad Much 10" 2005: | Inp: .')‘urww. wJ. oI~y20lMI'04«‘wIi-fit-clmgmenllunl [5 II W3C [2002) Una Agni! Acnunfiliy Guidelines 1.0. Dcczmbcr 2002. Retrieved Novanba 1" 2005: Imp: .'. Mww. w3.oty1R: 'WAl-USERAGENT. " I52] W3C (I999) Wcb Conical Aaccaslaility Guidelines Vmion I. Rmicvcd Nowmba I‘ 2005: Miptl‘-vww. w3.u; ~ ''CAGI(l~' |5J| W3C (2005) Web Comm! Acceubility Guideliies Vauion 2, WJC Working Drnlt Ruined Novcuhcr I" 2005: hmp: .'IMww. wJ. ntg. '1'lla’'CAO20:' [S4] Wcbffndible. The DRC Blew it. May 2134. Rztdcvtd Mandi I6“ 2005: hnpJ? u'ww. :vbcndihI¢. co. :|I. '|mt- fricudly-tcoourcawvwb-ownaibiIily. "dm-blew-iI. nhm1l [55] Zelcinnn. J. (2003) Daigning with Wcb unwind: lldiaqsolia. Indiana: New kidm.