One World, One Web ... But Great Diversity

One World, One Web ... But Great Diversity Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath UK Email: [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: About This Paper: This paper builds on previous work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility. The need for a user-centred, rather than resource-centred, approach is described. Application of this approach in various contexts, including Web 2.0, is described. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2008/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Tag ‘ w4a-2008 ' Co-Authors: Liddy Nevile, EA Draffan and Sotiris Fanou by-nc-sa

Previous Work (1)
Limitations of WAI’s approaches to accessibility in e-learning context were first described in 2004.
Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility , Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology , 2004, Kelly, B., Phipps, L and Swift, E. Vol. 30, Issue 3. Paper argued need to focus on the accessibility of the learner’s needs , rather than the e-learning resources .

Previous Work (2)
A framework for applying WCAG in the real world (of flawed browsers, limited resources, etc) was described at W4A 2005.
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. W4A 2005

Previous Work (3)
The need to address the context of use and the potential of AccessForAll metadata described at W4A 2005.
Tangram metaphor introduced to visualise a diversity of approaches
Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines . Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F & Phipps, L. W4A 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland May 2006

Previous Work (4)
Application of our work in a wider context (e.g. cultural resources) described at W4A 2007.
Paper introduced the stakeholder model and coined the term ‘ Accessibility 2.0 ’ to describe this approach
Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes . Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. W4A 2007 What do you see? Is the answer to be found in the resource or in the reader’s interpretation ?

Where Are We Today?
Our work:
Acknowledges limitations in WAI’s guidelines
Complements WAI’s developments to WCAG 2.0
Provides a realistic framework for development activities
Seeks to avoid stifling of innovation by the ‘accessibility fundamentalist’ barrier

WAI Limitations
Limitations of WAI guidelines have been acknowledged:
“ However, we recognize that standards are slow, and technology evolves quickly in the commercial marketplace. Innovation brings new customers and solidifies relationships with existing customers; Web 2.0 innovations also bring new types of professionals to the field, ones who care about the new dynamic medium. As technologies prove themselves, standardizing brings in the universality of the benefit, but necessarily follows this innovation. Therefore, this paper acknowledges and respects Web 2.0, discussing the issues and real world solutions.” Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies: Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web . Cooper, M. W4A 2007

What’s Missing
Further work is needed:
In understanding how WCAG guidelines can be used in a Web 2.0 context
In developing approaches for migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
In developing a more flexible and user-centred approach to Web accessibility
In addressing more challenging areas of accessibility, such as learning disabilities
These areas are addressed in the paper

Accessibility and Web 2.0
Reactions to Web 2.0 from “accessibility fundamentalists” (‘the truth is to be found in WCAG 1.0’) and Web 2.0 sceptics:
It uses AJAX, and we know that a bad thing
You shouldn’t use Facebook, MySpace, … as it breaks WCAG guidelines
Second Life is a non-no – it’s inherently inaccessible
But:
AJAX can provide accessibility benefits
People with disabilities are using social networks – should we stop them if they find this useful?
Judith finds Second Life a liberating experience

Second Life
A video clip shows Judith, a user with cerebral palsy, using Second Life with a headwand.
“ Do you think that this will be a really useful tool for people who are unable to get around, who have problems of mobility in real life? ” “ Yes, because you can have friends without having to go out and physically find them ”. The danger is that organisations will ban SL as they feel if fails to comply with accessibility guidelines.

Social Networks (1)
Social networks (e.g. Facebook):
Are being used by people with disabilities
Evaluation of PWDs’ experiences (rather than evaluation of the resource) is beginning
CAPCHA seems to be a barrier:
RNIB admit that solutions are not easy
Removal of CAPCHA would provide a worse environment for PWDs (more spam)
Blended solutions may have a role (“ring this number”)
Need for:
More evidence gathering
More advocacy & pressure
But to facilitate access to SNs, not to undermine them

Social Networks (2)
Should we regard Facebook (for example):
As a stand-alone service?
As one of a range of access points and allow users to chose their preferred environment?
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Personal Research Environments (PREs)
Of increasing interest in higher education
A focus on:
Supporting personal choice
Providing data which can be surfaced in different environment (via RSS and other technologies)
New media literacy skills
Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …

Accessibility Metadata
Initial work focussed on
Models to embrace diversity
Policies to support such models
Complementary work in progress on:
Metadata to support computer-mediated delivery of personalised resources
Standardisation activities (AccessForAll)
Demonstrator projects (e.g. TILE)

Learning Disabilities
“ WCAG 2.0 [does] not address all of the needs of people with disabilities, particularly cognitive, language, and learning disabilities ”
How to address learning disability issues?
Research work at UWE
System aimed at health trainers who have learning disabilities
Group will be trained to support health promotion in learning disabilities community
Approaches:
Engagement with the users at initial design phase
Pragmatic approach based on ‘what works’
Experiences will be shared at later date

Commissioning Web Sites
Evidence:
Popularity of WCAG-based logos (WCAG A/AA/AA Compliant, Bobby, …)
We know this is a problem
What should we do?
Discourage use of logos?
Explore alternative approaches?
Alternative approaches:
Focus on quality workflow processes , rather than the resources (cf ISO 9001 standard)
BSI PAS 78 provides example of this approach

Limitations
Limitations
Developers prefer hard objective rules
Difficulties in identifying ‘reasonable measures
Institutional policies based on old approaches
Ego invested in existing approaches (“I’ll never use any trendy JavaScript on my site”)
Addressing the challenges:
Drawing parallels with other areas
WCAG 1.0 as ‘training wheels’ – once principles mastered, more flexibility approaches can be taken
Sharing experiences, best practices (and problems) with peers

Conclusions
To conclude:
Previous work on identifying limitations of ‘Web accessibility 1.0’ is now becoming accepted
Deployment of WCAG 2.0 provides an opportunity to promote more flexible approaches
We hope paper has provided examples of such flexibility

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk	11
http://lanyrd.com	2
http://www.slideshare.net	1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1

One World, One Web ... But Great Diversity

by Brian Kelly

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

4 Embeds 15

Statistics

One World, One Web ... But Great Diversity Presentation Transcript