The document discusses accessibility issues and proposes new definitions and approaches. It notes that inaccessibility is not about disabilities but a mismatch between user needs and content. It proposes universal user-centered accessibility where resources are tested based on how they meet user needs and preferences, with users having control over choices. Metadata would describe content in terms of meeting needs and priorities are given to user choice and inclusivity. Tools that validate and evaluate accessibility based on guidelines producing metadata could help make authoring and content more accessible.

1. Accessibility Issues - 2005 Liddy Nevile

2. Inaccessibility NOT telecommunications problems ..?? NOT economic equity NOT a list of disabilities IS a list of requirements NOT a human classification IS a description of a relationship between a resource and a user

3. Inaccessibility definitions

4. Problem Definition Many people have visual, aural, tactile and cognitive disabilities. We don’t always know who has what disability - but do we want to know? We all have symptoms of disabilities according to where we are and what we are doing.

5. Problem Definition People’s symptoms change over time Users’ needs change with purpose and context Sites with accessibility problems are almost impossible to fix The W3C ‘good construction’ guidelines do not necessarily cover a particular user’s problem - broad improvement but specific failure

6. Problem Definition Authors just cannot learn to make universally accessible resources Technical training is very expensive in terms of time and money The recommended user agents are often not standards compliant Alternative content production is often a skilled 3rd party activity

7. What is the solution? Give authors better tools because the tools often can make accessible content Distribute the burden between technology and authors Make greater demands on publishing systems Support re-use and interoperability Use metadata!!!

8. Accessibility definitions Original W3C - device independence, separation of content from presentation - universal accessibility - test the resource U.S. - s. 508 for Federal Govt. contracts Australia - common law system with regulations UK, European Commission … New IMS/DC/ISO etc Working definition: mismatch between user needs and content - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service

9. Accessibility definitions Continuing W3C definition - universal accessibility - test the resource New IMS/DC/ISO etc definition: - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service

10. Accessibility definitions W3C - universal accessibility - test the resource Self-contained accessibility, just-in-case ISO/IMS/DC Working definition: - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service Distributed accessibility, just-in-time

11. How big is the problem?

12. How big is the problem?

13. How big is the problem? Visual, dexterity, and hearing difficulties are the most common among working-age adults: Approximately one in four (27%) have a visual difficulty or impairment. One in four (26%) have a dexterity difficulty or impairment. One in five (21%) have a hearing difficulty or impairment. Somewhat fewer working-age adults have a cognitive difficulty or impairment (20%) and very few (4%) have a speech difficulty or impairment.

14. How big is the problem?

15. How expensive is the problem? Fairfax Digital have 40 sites - 5 or 6 key destinations smh.com.au, theage.com.au, drive.com.au, mycareer.com.au, domain.com.au, afr.com.au SMH/AGE alone 135 million PI's per month - 6 mill uv's ▪ The leading News sites in Australia 3 to 4 minute average session times

16. How expensive is the problem? What Fairfax did: moved their biggest sites across to XHTML/CSS in a 6 month timeframe Had the smoothest rollout they have ever experienced , and will save a million $ in bandwidth per year!

17. Typical users’ problems Can’t see screen Can’t see colours Can’t read text Can’t hear Can’t control cursor Can’t type

18. OS support Add this to Favorites folder Add this to startup items Apple channel …..

19. Browser support (?) Lynx IE Netscape/Mozilla iCab Opera Amaya There are about 35 browsers in common use… (Note W3C UAAG - includes LMS)

20. Assistive Technologies

21. Assistive Technologies

22. Anti-access Technologies

23. New IMS/DC/…approach Think of the user and work towards user needs and preferences Provide a good, easy way to record user needs and preferences Describe content in terms of needs and preferences Avoid all issues to do with disabilities and to do with legal liability

24. User accessibility profiles An independent accessibility element Multiple, cascading profiles Three main classes of requirements Control Display (presentation) Content

25. AccLIP (User profile) AccessForAll: http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility/

26. Resource accessibility profile An independent accessibility element Simple or composite profiles Three main classes of characteristics Control Display (presentation) Content

27. AccMD (Resource Profile) A statement of media/modality types: hasImage, hasText, hasVideo, hasAudio An EARL statement … so a URI: http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility

28. Implementation The Inclusive Learning Exchange at http://inclusivelearning.ca/

31. Learner priorities Users should always have final say over choice of resources and items Content/display/control choices can be ‘exploited’ easily Mixed groups can negotiate / accommodate conditions for collaborative work

32. Pedagogical priorities The approach promotes choice And inclusivity Without emphasis on abilities and disabilities and with far less effort for authors and teachers

33. Tools and Implementations Accessible tools Tools for accessible authoring Validators ie code validators Evaluators ie compliance with guidelines producing metadata (EARL) Digital repositories for descriptive metadata On-the-fly repair tools (SWAP, ...) Web-4-All (smart card adaptation to needs)

34. Tools and Implementations In the ePortfolio demonstator tool for the EPICC project, Giunti have implemented a small part of AccLIP 1.0 that adjusts the interface (fonts etc.) on importing a portfolio. The USB standards group headed by ATIA will be using AccLIP as the basis and referent for their USB device communication standard. This will mean a universal Web-4-All and adherence to AccLIP by all USB devices.

35. References http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility http://w3.org/WAI/ http: //dublincore .org/groups/access/ http: //inclusivelearning .ca