Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)


Published on

Slides for the opening plenary talk on "From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)" given by Brian Kelly, UKOLN at the OzeWAI 2009 conference held in Melbourne, Australia on 21-23 January 2009.


Published in: Education, Design, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)

  1. 1. From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0) Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK UKOLN is supported by: This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. Tag for ‘ ozewai-2009 ' Email: [email_address] Twitter: Blog:
  2. 2. A Fairy Tale for the C21 st <ul><li>Benevolent emperor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wants to do good for all his subjects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Told of a secret formulae which allowed all of his edicts to be read by everyone in his domain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The justice minister was told to implement the magic formulae – he did (even if he didn’t understand it) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The head of the police force was told to ensure everyone used it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The subjects agreed that it was good (even through they too, didn’t understand it) </li></ul></ul>One little boy pointed out the truth. The magic doesn’t work. Today you will hear what the boy had to say!
  3. 3. About Me <ul><li>Brian Kelly: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UK Web Focus: a national advisory post </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long-standing Web evangelist (since Jan 1993) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based at UKOLN, University of Bath, with remit to advise HE/FE and cultural heritage sectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interests include Web 2.0, standards, accessibility and deployment strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awarded the IWR Information Professional of the Year in December 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Winner of Best Research Paper on “ Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility ” at ALT-C 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Papers presented at International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility ( W4A) in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 </li></ul></ul>Introduction
  4. 4. About My Past – 1997-8 <ul><li>Attended WAI launch in April 1997 & follow-up meeting in UK. </li></ul><ul><li>Member of DISinHE Steering group </li></ul>
  5. 5. About My Past – 1999-2000 <ul><li>Member of DISinHE Steering group – promoting WAI and WCAG 1.0 </li></ul>
  6. 6. About My Past – 2000-02 <ul><li>Hmm – nothing much new to say, it seems. </li></ul><ul><li>But then I start to gather evidence (what does Bobby report?) and used findings to chastise organisations </li></ul>
  7. 7. About My Past – 2003-04 <ul><li>Then questioning the assumptions: “Web accessibility too difficult?” and “Is universal Web accessibility possible?” followed by peer-reviewed papers </li></ul>
  8. 8. About My Past – 2005-06 <ul><li>Developing holistic & user-focussed approaches: “Holistic Framework for Web Accessibility” “Contextual Web Accessibility” – and winning award for best research paper  </li></ul>
  9. 9. About My Past – 2007-09 <ul><li>Extending holistic & user-focussed approaches to new domains (cultural resources and Web 2.0 environment) and seeking to embed in mainstream development. And now speaking in Australia  </li></ul>
  10. 10. The WAI Model <ul><li>WAI has been tremendously successful in raising awareness of Web accessibility and providing guidelines to achieve this. </li></ul><ul><li>WAI guidelines are based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCAG (Web Content …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ATAG (Authoring Tools ..) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UAAG (User Agents …) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The model is simple to grasp. But is this model appropriate for the future? Does the model: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflect the diversity of users & user environments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflect the diversity of Web usage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflect real-world technical environment and developments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflect real-world political and cultural environments </li></ul></ul>The Magic Formulae WAI Approach
  11. 11. Limitations Of The Model <ul><li>This model: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires all three components to be implemented in order for the WAI vision to be achieved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is of limited use to end users who have no control over browser or authoring tools developments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is confusing – as many think WCAG is WAI </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How does this model address: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Delays in full conformance? (We're still waiting for &quot; until user agents … &quot; clause to be resolved) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Real-world reluctance to deploy new software (issues of inertia, testing, costs, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Real world complexities </li></ul></ul>Is there a plan B in case this model fails to ever take off? Is it desirable to base legal requirements on an unproven theoretical framework? WAI Approach
  12. 12. WCAG Conformance <ul><li>Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines. Several surveys carried out using automated tools (which gives upper limit on accessibility) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DRC report, 2004: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based on 1,000 UK Web sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UK Museums, Libraries and Archives report, 2004: 42% A, 3% AA conformance based on 124 Web sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UK Universities surveys (UKOLN, 2002, 2004): 43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Note that these figures aren’t of accessible Web site, only conformance with automated tests </li></ul><ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>These low conformance levels can indicate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organisations don't care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidelines are difficult to implement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, … </li></ul></ul>WAI Approach
  13. 13. WCAG 1.0 Difficulties <ul><li>Certain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns: </li></ul><ul><li>11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotes own technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appears to ignore major improvements in accessibility of non-W3C formats </li></ul></ul><ul><li>11.1 … and use the latest versions when supported </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goes against project management guidelines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by browsers – this is an interoperability issue </li></ul></ul>WAI Approach
  14. 14. Proprietary Formats <ul><li>WCAG 1.0 P2 requires use of W3C formats </li></ul><ul><li>Thoughts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflects the idealism of the Web community in late 1990s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The conveyor belt of great W3C formats has slowed down (anyone use SMIL, SVG, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software vendors are responding to WAI’s initiatives (formats, OS developments, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developments in non-Web areas (mobile phones, …) & integration with real-world (e.g. blended learning, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users care about the outcomes, not the way in which the outcomes are provided </li></ul></ul>WAI Approach
  15. 15. Usability Issues (1) <ul><li>&quot;WCAG provides the highway code for accessibility on the information superhighway&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Fine – but what if the accelerator and brake pedals differ on every car. I'll still crash!&quot; </li></ul>WAI Approach <ul><li>DRC survey also carried out usability testing: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exemplar accessible Web sites did not comply with WCAG guidelines (WCAG A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WCAG compliant sites (according to tools) were not accessible or usable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>DDA requires users to be able to access & use services </li></ul>DDA – UK's Disability Discrimination Act The subjectivity of usability guidelines seems to be recognised &quot; I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say &quot; Jakob Neilson
  16. 16. Usability Issues (2) <ul><li>What’s the relationship between usability & accessibility? </li></ul>Usability Accessibility WAI Approach Whose definition counts: WAI’s, information providers’, policy makers’, legislators’, …? Usability Accessibility Accessibility Usability Usability Accessibility Usability Accessibility
  17. 17. Confusion <ul><li>SiteMorse’s automated accessibility survey of UK disability organisations’ Web sites generated heated debate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SiteMorse: Low WCAG conformance found: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Response: doesn’t matter, manual testing gives OK results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What do such comments say about disability organisations’ views of WCAG ? </li></ul>Note that the RNIB actively promote WCAG guidelines – and also promote use of accessible Flash, without flagging any inconsistencies. Organisations may publicly support WCAG whilst rejecting (parts of) it. WAI Approach
  18. 18. Nitpicking? <ul><li>“ This is just nit-picking! WCAG is valuable – don’t knock it! ” </li></ul><ul><li>WCAG is valuable, but we need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Build a robust framework for the future </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure clarity and avoid ambiguities to avoid different interpretations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflect on experiences gained since 1999 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid dangers of inappropriate case law being set </li></ul></ul>Nightmare Scenario Case taken to court in UK. Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies. Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished. WAI Approach
  19. 19. Holistic Approach <ul><li>Kelly, Phipps & Swift 1 have argued for a holistic framework for e-learning accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>This framework: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focusses on the needs of the learner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires accessible learning outcomes , not necessarily e-learning resources </li></ul></ul>1 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility , Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3 An Alternative Approach This approach reflects an emphasis on blended learning (rather than just e-learning)
  20. 20. Previous Work (1) <ul><li>Following on from first paper, a framework for applying WCAG in the real world (of flawed browsers, limited resources, etc) was described at W4A 2005. </li></ul>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
  21. 21. Previous Work (2) <ul><li>The need to address the context of use and the potential of AccessForAll metadata described at W4A 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Tangram metaphor introduced to visualise a diversity of approaches. </li></ul>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
  22. 22. Previous Work (3) <ul><li>Application of our work in a wider context (e.g. cultural resources) described at W4A 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Paper introduced the stakeholder model and coined the term ‘ Accessibility 2.0 ’ to describe this approach </li></ul>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 ?
  23. 23. Universal Accessibility? Normal Cancer The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929) The Duck-Rabbit CRAFT BREWERY
  24. 24. Where Are We Today? <ul><li>Our work: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Acknowledges limitations in WAI’s model and guidelines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complements WAI’s developments to WCAG 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a realistic framework for development activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seeks to avoid stifling of innovation by the ‘accessibility fundamentalist’ barrier </li></ul></ul>An Alternative Approach
  25. 25. WAI Limitations <ul><li>Limitations of WAI guidelines have been acknowledged: </li></ul>“ 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 An Alternative Approach
  26. 26. What’s Missing <ul><li>Further work is needed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In understanding how WCAG guidelines can be used in a Web 2.0 context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In developing approaches for migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In developing a more flexible and user-centred approach to Web accessibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In addressing more challenging areas of accessibility, such as learning disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These areas are addressed in W4A 2008 paper </li></ul>An Alternative Approach
  27. 27. WCAG In Context <ul><li>WCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceivable • Operable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understandable • Robust </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious ”: Not universally understandable , now universally accessible, culturally-specific … but witty </li></ul></ul>Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable? <ul><li>And the relevance of ATAG to authors is questionable: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Flash, PDF, MS Word, … Are these formats essential to your corporate infrastructure and workflow? What does a ATAG-conformant PDF authoring tool mean? </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Accessibility and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reactions to Web 2.0 from “accessibility fundamentalists” (‘the truth is to be found in WCAG 1.0’) and Web 2.0 sceptics: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It uses AJAX, and we know that a bad thing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You shouldn’t use Facebook, MySpace, … as it breaks WCAG guidelines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Second Life is a no-no – it’s inherently inaccessible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AJAX can provide accessibility benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People with disabilities are using social networks – should we stop them if they find this useful? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Judith finds Second Life a liberating experience </li></ul></ul>An Alternative Approach Accessibility 2.0
  29. 29. Second Life <ul><li>A video clip shows Judith, a user with cerebral palsy, using Second Life with a headwand. </li></ul>“ 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. Accessibility 2.0
  30. 30. Social Networks (1) <ul><li>Social networks (e.g. Facebook): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are being used by people with disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of PWDs’ experiences (rather than evaluation of the resource) is beginning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CAPCHA seems to be a barrier: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RNIB admit that solutions are not easy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Removal of CAPCHA would provide a worse environment for PWDs (more spam) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blended solutions may have a role (“ring this number”) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Need for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More evidence gathering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More advocacy & pressure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But to facilitate access to SNs not to undermine them </li></ul>An Alternative Approach Accessibility 2.0
  31. 31. Social Networks (2) <ul><li>Should we regard Facebook (for example): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As a stand-alone service? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>As one of a range of access points and allow users to chose their preferred environment? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Personal Research Environments (PREs) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Of increasing interest in education </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A focus on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting personal choice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Providing data which can be surfaced in different environment (via RSS and other technologies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New media literacy skills </li></ul></ul>Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, … An Alternative Approach Accessibility 2.0
  32. 32. Learning Disabilities <ul><li>“ WCAG 2.0 [does] not address all of the needs of people with disabilities, particularly cognitive, language, and learning disabilities ” </li></ul><ul><li>How to address learning disability issues? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research work at UWE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>System aimed at health trainers who have learning disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group will be trained to support health promotion in learning disabilities community </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Approaches: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement with the users at initial design phase </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pragmatic approach based on ‘what works’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experiences will be shared at later date </li></ul></ul>An Alternative Approach Accessibility 2.0
  33. 33. Accessibility 2.0 <ul><li>Need to build on WAI’s successes, whilst articulating a more sophisticated approach. Accessibility 2.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User-focussed : It’s about satisfying user’s needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich set of stakeholders : More than the author and the user </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Always beta : Accessibility is hard, so we’re continually learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility : There’s not a single solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diversity : There’s also diversity in society’s views on accessibility (e.g. widening participation, not universal accessibility) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blended solutions : Focus on ‘accessibility’ and not just ‘Web accessibility’ </li></ul></ul>Accessibility 2.0 But how will this work in an environment of global uses of Web 2.0? An Alternative Approach
  34. 34.
  35. 35. The Web is Agreement
  36. 36. Where Are We In This View? Web WCAG Web IT <ul><li>WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Motherhood and apple pie? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrably flawed after 10 years e.g. Lilley: “ 99.99999% of the Web was invalid HTML. W3C pretended that didn’t exist. ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>So 99.9999% of Web isn’t WCAG AA conformant! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WCAG+other guidelines+user focus+blended accessibility = widening participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not yet proven wrong, but ignores scale of Web </li></ul></ul>The Pixel of Perfection The Holistic Hamlet WAI
  37. 37. <ul><li>Kevin Kelly </li></ul>
  38. 38. Accessibility 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 <ul><li>Accessibility 1.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Handcrafted resources made accessible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accessibility 2.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional approaches to accessibility </li></ul></ul>Accessibility 3.0 <ul><li>Accessibility 3.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global approaches to accessibility </li></ul></ul>Work on accessibility metadata is underway, but is still at an early stage.
  39. 39. Web Accessibility 3.0 <ul><li>We’re already seeing computer software giving hints on resources which may be of interest to us </li></ul><ul><li>Note how improvements can be made: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>By system gathering more data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By user providing preferences and other hints clues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By others providing data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By author metadata </li></ul></ul>Accessibility 3.0 Challenge: Can such developments be applied to provide benefits to people with disabilities? “ Web Accessibility 3.0 ” coined in “ Web Accessibility 3.0: Learning From The Past, Planning For The Future ”, Neville, L. & Kelly, B. ADDW08, Sep 2008
  40. 40. Semantic Web Principles <ul><li>Principles which may be required: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Persistent URIs for resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata in RDF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility metadata schema published on Web </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility terms published in public ontologies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Applications: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To provide user tagging and links to equivalent resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To support personalisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Openness of software, content and metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendors support </li></ul></ul>Accessibility 3.0
  41. 41. Learning From The Past <ul><li>We’re starting to explore an Accessibility 3.0 vision </li></ul><ul><li>But what lessons must we learn from Accessibility 1.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We don’t want a theoretical solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The dangers of standardising too soon </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The dangers of legislating too soon </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The dangers of ignoring diversity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The need to get market acceptance for tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The difficulties of getting market acceptance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards-based solutions may not deliver </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>Accessibility 3.0 Note that the Accessibility 3.0 vision is based on W3C Semantic Web principles. A challenge for W3C and user community is reconciling WAI and SW visions and how they are interpreted.
  42. 42. A Fresh Look At Accessibility <ul><li>We acknowledge that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic, national and discipline boundaries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An individual does not need a universally accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource which is accessible to them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different communities may have different needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Same person may have different needs at different times and places </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We find the term ‘ inclusive ’ more useful than ‘ accessible to people with disabilities ’ </li></ul></ul>An Alternative Approach
  43. 43. Critique <ul><li>Web accessibility 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, … implies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Universality </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What we need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A flexible framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acknowledgement of need to address: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Diversity of (& tensions between) different user group and user needs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ever increasing diversity of uses of the Web </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Resource implications </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Context of use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Adaptability (1.0) <ul><li>Term which acknowledges such diversity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stakeholders and their (yesterday </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Change: policies, learning, evidence, … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>Question : Shouldn’t we be talking about Web Adaptability rather than Web Adaptability 1.0? <ul><li>Need for adaptability : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy makers, trainers, authors : Yesterday JavaScript and proprietary formats were banned, Today they’re permitted. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legislators : Yesterday all Government Web site had to comply with WCAG 1.0. Today the same is true, as it takes years to change legislation. </li></ul></ul>Web Adaptability
  45. 45. Putting The User First <ul><li>The way we were </li></ul>The rules The solution The user Example “ UK Government requires all government Web sites to comply with WCAG AA” Web Adaptability The context The user The solution The guidelines Where we should be <ul><li>Example </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Involve user in design process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognise the context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then seek to apply guidelines </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Web Adaptability Framework <ul><li>The framework embraces: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The intended use of the service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The intended audience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The available resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical innovations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organisational policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Definitions of accessibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>Alternative to a one-size-fit-all approach To avoid adaptability meaning doing whatever you fancy (e.g. IE-only sites) the adaptation needs to be implemented with context of a legal framework, reasonable measures, … Reasonable Measures
  47. 47. Who’s Using These Approaches? (1) <ul><li>Public library example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentation at national Public Library event </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ What about accessibility?” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new legislation becomes into force” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Blended approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ What’s the purpose of the game?” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents get books” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as an alternative? This is an alternative approach to problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities” </li></ul></ul>Web Adaptability
  48. 48. Who’s Using These Approaches? (2a) <ul><li>Tate’s i-Map project: early example of an award-winning approach to providing access to paintings for visual impaired users </li></ul>Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on “ Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility ” paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell <ul><ul><li>It used Flash ..! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… to allow users to ‘participate’ in the creation of the painting </li></ul></ul>
  49. 49. Who’s Using These Approaches? (2b) <ul><li>I-Map project also used a blended approach, through provision of access to raised images </li></ul>
  50. 50. Who’s Using These Approaches? (3) <ul><li>Wolverhampton Art Gallery are using a user-focused development approach to providing access to information about Bantcock House </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes, it uses YouTube </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deaf users involved in design processes (e.g. benefits of signers in context of museum) </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Who’s Using These Approaches? (4) <ul><li>How might a user-centred approach to learning disabilities work? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 year project based at UWE has a focus is on accessibility of outcomes of a service rather than the resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis moves from the creator of the Web resources to the end user </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>End user will be involved in content creation and also the design & creation of the system from the beginning of the development cycle through to its conclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose of this approach is not to try to create a system & content that is universally accessible but to try to maximise usefulness & usability for a targeted audience of learning disability users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal aims to be achievable & be more relevant to the specific user group than an approach aimed at creating content by application of international guidelines. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Described in “ One World, One Web … But Great Diversity ” </li></ul>Web Adaptability
  52. 52. A Challenge For You! <ul><li>You have: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An institutional repository </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An open access policy, which encourages take-up by others of your research reports and data & teaching & learning resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research papers are in non-conformant PDFs & learning resources are mostly PowerPoints & other proprietary formats. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What do you do: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mandate use of HTML in repositories? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Switch off services until workflow issues resolved? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Or something else? </li></ul></ul>Web Adaptability
  53. 53. Conclusions <ul><li>There’s a need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For accessibility researchers to gather evidence on proposed solutions to accessibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To explore ways in which changes in our understandings can be adopted and deployed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This talk: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explores limitations of current approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggests alternative approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future work: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to critique the critique </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to develop better models for change control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to learn from the past </li></ul></ul>Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that the emperor was naked!
  54. 54. Questions <ul><li>Questions are welcome </li></ul>