The Accessible Web Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic And User-Centred Approach To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/museums-web-2007/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Resources bookmarked using ‘ ukmw07 ' tag Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.

Contents Reflections on today’s themes Web accessibility & innovation Revisiting Web accessibility: Contextualising Web accessibility: What Next?

Reflections on today’s themes

Web accessibility & innovation

Revisiting Web accessibility:

Contextualising Web accessibility:

What Next?

Today’s Talks What have we heard about today: Museums 2.0: just do it How tagging can help Potential of Second Life Maybe Semantic Web has a role The challenges of the personalised Web and the ethical Web What do you think: Toys for the boys? Or not?

What have we heard about today:

Museums 2.0: just do it

How tagging can help

Potential of Second Life

Maybe Semantic Web has a role

The challenges of the personalised Web and the ethical Web

What do you think:

Toys for the boys?

Or not?

Accessibility and Innovation “ I’m looking at Web 2.0 / Museum Mashups / Facebook / Second Life /…. What do people think about these technologies? ” Common responses: We are committed to complying with accessibility guidelines; we won’t be driven by new technologies But might this actually mean: We can’t be bothered We’re threatened We’re scared … What if new technologies actually enhance accessibility? What if the accessibility guidelines are out-of-date?

“ I’m looking at Web 2.0 / Museum Mashups / Facebook / Second Life /…. What do people think about these technologies? ”

Common responses:

We are committed to complying with accessibility guidelines; we won’t be driven by new technologies

But might this actually mean:

We can’t be bothered

We’re threatened

We’re scared

…

What if new technologies actually enhance accessibility?

What if the accessibility guidelines are out-of-date?

Where Does Accessibility Fit In? What is your view? Web innovations typically add to the accessibility barriers people with disabilities face: Need for caution and delaying innovation until accessibility features are developed Can’t decide; it’s too complicated Web innovations often enhance accessibility: Opportunity to exploit innovations and gain experiences

What is your view?

Web innovations typically add to the accessibility barriers people with disabilities face:

Need for caution and delaying innovation until accessibility features are developed

Can’t decide; it’s too complicated

Web innovations often enhance accessibility:

Opportunity to exploit innovations and gain experiences

My Views My thoughts on this: We’ve interpreted accessibility incorrectly It’s not about: Control  Rules Universal solutions  An IT Problem A worry  Avoiding being sued It is not about: Empowering people  Widening participation Contextual solutions  Blended solutions A great opportunity  Being appreciated

My thoughts on this:

We’ve interpreted accessibility incorrectly

It’s not about:

Control  Rules

Universal solutions  An IT Problem

A worry  Avoiding being sued

It is not about:

Empowering people  Widening participation

Contextual solutions  Blended solutions

A great opportunity  Being appreciated

Background: W3C WAI & WCAG W3C (World Wide Web Consortium): Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative): W3C group responsible for developing guidelines which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines): One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG provides advice of accessibility on Web content (e.g. HTML pages) Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools (ATAG) Review: WAI Approach

W3C (World Wide Web Consortium):

Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards

WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative):

W3C group responsible for developing guidelines which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible

WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines):

One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG provides advice of accessibility on Web content (e.g. HTML pages)

Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools (ATAG)

The WAI Model The WAI model for Web accessibility is based on three components: Content Authoring Tools Browsers Assumption: do three right  universal accessibility But: We have no control over browsers & authoring tools The browsers and authoring tools aren't great The content guidelines are flawed What if users are happy with their existing browser? Review: WAI Approach

The WAI model for Web accessibility is based on three components:

Content

Authoring Tools

Browsers

Assumption: do three right  universal accessibility

But:

We have no control over browsers & authoring tools

The browsers and authoring tools aren't great

The content guidelines are flawed

What if users are happy with their existing browser?

Interpretation of WAI WCAG How do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images; HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …): Mandatory, with following characteristics: Clearly defined rules  Objective Checking mostly objective Penalties for non-compliance Similar to checking that HTML complies with the standard Advisory, with following characteristics: Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in context It's about providing useful, usable resources It's contextual Checking mostly subjective It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed BK Review: WAI Approach Which reflects your organisations’ view most closely?

How do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images; HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …):

Mandatory, with following characteristics:

Clearly defined rules  Objective

Checking mostly objective

Penalties for non-compliance

Similar to checking that HTML complies with the standard

Advisory, with following characteristics:

Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in context

It's about providing useful, usable resources

It's contextual

Checking mostly subjective

It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed

Limitations of the WAI Model WAI approach has shortcomings: WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents … and conformant users! WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C formats; must use latest versions; …") Has a Web-only view of the world: What about other IT solutions? What about blended (real world) solutions? Has a belief in a single universal solution: But isn't accessibility a very complex issue Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to be developed at the first attempt? Limitations

WAI approach has shortcomings:

WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents

… and conformant users!

WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C formats; must use latest versions; …")

Has a Web-only view of the world:

What about other IT solutions?

What about blended (real world) solutions?

Has a belief in a single universal solution:

But isn't accessibility a very complex issue

Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to be developed at the first attempt?

What do we mean by Web accessibility? Can we provide accessible Web services without a clear understanding of what we mean by this? Small group exercise: What do we mean by Web accessibility? Where does usability fit in? Where does interoperability fit in? E

Can we provide accessible Web services without a clear understanding of what we mean by this?

Small group exercise:

What do we mean by Web accessibility?

Where does usability fit in?

Where does interoperability fit in?

Usability & Interoperability What about: Usability Interoperability http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp Example: Long, application-specific URLs can cause accessibility/usability and interoperability problems Addition Problems: We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users) We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly) We don’t need to address usability The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

What about:

Usability

Interoperability

Example:

Long, application-specific URLs can cause accessibility/usability and interoperability problems

Addition Problems:

We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users)

We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly)

We don’t need to address usability

The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

Diversity – Content WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites: Here’s the train timetable – I want the information and I want it now This is reasonable and desirable But is this approach always relevant to learning and cultural contexts: Here’s something – you must interpret it (and being wrong can be part of the learning process) Context

WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites:

Here’s the train timetable – I want the information and I want it now

This is reasonable and desirable

But is this approach always relevant to learning and cultural contexts:

Here’s something – you must interpret it (and being wrong can be part of the learning process)

Universal Accessibility?

Holistic Approach Q How do you make highly interactive e-learning services universally accessibility (e.g. 3D model of molecules)? A If this would be unreasonable, make the learning outcomes (rather than e-learning resources) accessible. Our Work Can we apply this approach to cultural resources, with an emphasis on providing a diversity of cultural experiences? See Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility by Kelly, Phipps & Swift

Q How do you make highly interactive e-learning services universally accessibility (e.g. 3D model of molecules)?

A If this would be unreasonable, make the learning outcomes (rather than e-learning resources) accessible.

Articulating the Approach The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist / automated approach: W3C model has limitations Jigsaw model implies single solution Tangram model seeks to avoid such problems This approach: Encourages developers to think about a diversity of solutions Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user Our Work

The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist / automated approach:

W3C model has limitations

Jigsaw model implies single solution

Tangram model seeks to avoid such problems

This approach:

Encourages developers to think about a diversity of solutions

Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user

Tangram Model & Testability "WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing  ) Issues: What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")? What about 'baselines' – context only known locally What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'? Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78 Tangram model can be used within WCAG Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable) Supports baselines Baseline 1 Testable Our Work

"WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing  )

Issues:

What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")?

What about 'baselines' – context only known locally

What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'?

Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78

Tangram model can be used within WCAG

Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable)

Supports baselines

Accessibility 2.0 Paper Paper presented at W4A 2007 conference: “ I don’t disagree – but WAI focusses on accessibility of Web resources” Our misunderstanding of WAI’s role: Decide on the services you wish to provide, then look at accessibility not: Look at accessibility guidelines to see what is allowed Note this ties in with Seb Chan’s talk on the processes for selecting technologies

Paper presented at W4A 2007 conference:

“ I don’t disagree – but WAI focusses on accessibility of Web resources”

Our misunderstanding of WAI’s role:

Decide on the services you wish to provide, then look at accessibility

not:

Look at accessibility guidelines to see what is allowed

WCAG 2.0 Latest WCAG 2.0 draft is much improved Focus on four key principles (POUR): Perceivable : Information and user interface components must be perceivable by users Operable : User interface components must be operable by users Understandable : Information and operation of user interface must be understandable by users Robust : Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies Note WCAG 2.0 draft removes some of the flawed guidelines – and HTML compliance is toned down. This may result in many Web sites will enhance their WCAG rating overnight!

Latest WCAG 2.0 draft is much improved

Focus on four key principles (POUR):

Perceivable : Information and user interface components must be perceivable by users

Operable : User interface components must be operable by users

Understandable : Information and operation of user interface must be understandable by users

Robust : Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies

WCAG & Holistic Context Proposal for a museum’s accessibility policy: Museum services will seek to engage its audiences, attract new & diverse audiences, ... Museum will take reasonable measures to maximise access to its services. Interpretations: Second Life, Web 2.0, … to attract new audiences (e.g. young people) Reasonable measures to ensure Web 2.0 is widely accessible (e.g. WCAG if possible)

Proposal for a museum’s accessibility policy:

Museum services will seek to engage its audiences, attract new & diverse audiences, ...

Museum will take reasonable measures to maximise access to its services.

Interpretations:

Second Life, Web 2.0, … to attract new audiences (e.g. young people)

Reasonable measures to ensure Web 2.0 is widely accessible (e.g. WCAG if possible)

On Reasonableness How do we know what is reasonable? Every page must be WCAG AA compliant (including HTML-compliance, even if 99% of Web pages fail this test) No Podcasting, as can’t be heard by deaf users (to hell with blind users) No Flash – even if people say they like it No surrealism – people won’t understand it Or: Staff training so they’re informed of best practices Sharing our approaches – and learning from others Engaging with our user communities Doing what museums are expected to do

How do we know what is reasonable?

Every page must be WCAG AA compliant (including HTML-compliance, even if 99% of Web pages fail this test)

No Podcasting, as can’t be heard by deaf users (to hell with blind users)

No Flash – even if people say they like it

No surrealism – people won’t understand it

Or:

Staff training so they’re informed of best practices

Sharing our approaches – and learning from others

Engaging with our user communities

Doing what museums are expected to do

Not In Isolation How do we: Develop staff? Enhance the effectiveness of our approaches? Develop an understand on what is reasonable? Answers: Documenting policies Sharing our experiences Sharing our resources Discussing and debating

How do we:

Develop staff?

Enhance the effectiveness of our approaches?

Develop an understand on what is reasonable?

Answers:

Documenting policies

Sharing our experiences

Sharing our resources

Discussing and debating

An Emerging Roadmap Accessibility Summit II held in Nov 2006 agreed: Need for a manifesto: Building on WAI’s foundations Developing a user-centric approach Developing a contextual model Developing an evidence-based approach A roadmap for future work: Engagement with disability communities Engagement with WAI Identifying areas of research Gathering case studies of best practices … Follow-up workshop took place at MW 2007

Accessibility Summit II held in Nov 2006 agreed:

Need for a manifesto:

Building on WAI’s foundations

Developing a user-centric approach

Developing a contextual model

Developing an evidence-based approach

A roadmap for future work:

Engagement with disability communities

Engagement with WAI

Identifying areas of research

Gathering case studies of best practices

…

Follow-up workshop took place at MW 2007

Application to Second Life How do I make SL accessible? Wrong question – ask: “ How do I maximise the accessibility of my museum?” Solutions: Wheelchair ramps Web sites Accessible Web sites Web experiences Immersive environments … A portfolio of solutions aimed at widening participation Compare with the BBC. Is the radio universally accessible to the deaf – or do the BBC have a portfolio of channels?

How do I make SL accessible?

Wrong question – ask:

“ How do I maximise the accessibility of my museum?”

Solutions:

Wheelchair ramps

Web sites

Accessible Web sites

Web experiences

Immersive environments

…

A portfolio of solutions aimed at widening participation

Next Steps for Museums At MW 2007: Museums wiki service described Accessibility 2.0 added to wiki An opportunity for you: Use this to briefly summarise your approaches to accessibility 2.0 (And keep copy for use elsewhere) http://museums.wikia.com/ wiki/Accessibility_2.0

At MW 2007:

Museums wiki service described

Accessibility 2.0 added to wiki

An opportunity for you:

Use this to briefly summarise your approaches to accessibility 2.0

(And keep copy for use elsewhere)

Just Do It!! What not to do: Seek 2 year funding in order to explore implications, set up case study database, QA processes, … Instead: Write case study on the train home! Document what you’ve done - you’ve probably adopted a user-focussed approach anyway! (cf. Tate’s i-Map work described by Caro Howell 2 years ago)

What not to do:

Seek 2 year funding in order to explore implications, set up case study database, QA processes, …

Instead:

Write case study on the train home!

Document what you’ve done - you’ve probably adopted a user-focussed approach anyway! (cf. Tate’s i-Map work described by Caro Howell 2 years ago)

What Next? What should the next steps be in development of approaches for Web accessibility in a museum context?

What should the next steps be in development of approaches for Web accessibility in a museum context?