The Accessible Social Computing Policy

Jude PinedaCMPT480

December 5, 2015

Justification

• A 2009 study on social media accessibility rated YouTube and Facebook in the middle at 4.78 and 4.48 respectively. • Low-contrast headings and the absence of photo or video

captions could prevent users from appreciating the content of the sites they visit. • Social computing must cater to the widest possible range of

users.

Analysis• WebAIM did not have a separate section on social media accessibility until

their 4th survey on May 2012.• The 2014 FCC conference was only attended by LinkedIn and Drupal.• 43% of WebAIM respondents attribute a lack of awareness on web

accessibility.• Debra Ruh lists common accessibility issues:• Lack of section headings• Poor color contrast• Inability to navigate using keyboard only• Inability to operate functionality using keyboard only• Missing text equivalents for images• Inability to resize text• Videos lacking captioning

Analysis• Joseph Dolson suggests four steps for social media accessibility:• Provide captions for videos• Title photographs descriptively and usefully• Don’t get carried away by abbreviations• Make sure that the information posted can be read elsewhere

• Emergency 2.0 expressed the user need for descriptive text in social media.• Queen’s University reveals the most common accessibility issues in three

of the most popular social networks. • Facebook’s timeline layout was difficult and confusing to navigate at times.• Facebook changes its layout frequently that makes remembering navigation difficult. • Alt text is unavailable for Facebook images.• CAPTCHAs for registration are an issue.• Queen’s criticized the lack of keyboard controls for YouTube

Implementation: Definitions and Basis

• Four aspects of social computing are defined in the Policy.• Social websites• Social applications• Social media• Social tags

• The ISO 9241-171 standard was used as a starting ground for making the Accessible Social Computing Policy.

Implementation: The first draft

• Each of the 139 clauses in the ISO 9241-171 standard was checked against 4 different aspects of the Policy• A “Y” was marked on

ISO 9241-171 clauses which apply to a specific social computing aspect and was left blank otherwise.

Clause No.

GuidelineApplicability

Websites

Apps Media Tags

8 General guidelines8.1 Names for user interface elements8.1.1 Provide a name for every user interface

elementY Y    

8.1.2 Provide meaningful names       Y8.1.3 Provide unique names within context        8.1.4 Make names available to assesive

technology       

8.1.5 Display names        8.1.6 Provide names and labels that are short       Y8.1.7 Provide text label display option for

icons  Y    

8.1.8 Properly position the labels of user interface elements on the screen

  Y    

Implementation: The first revision• Four major corrections were found on the first draft:• Reasons for identifying guideline applicability are absent.• Examples provided lean toward confirmation bias.• Examples provided only reword the guidelines, or are outside social computing. • Examples provided do not show which social computing aspect it applies to.

• A solid definition of the aspects of social computing were established.• The scope and limitations of the Accessible Social Computing Policy

were defined.• Limited to the clauses of ISO9241-171• The evaluation was done against my personal knowledge of social computing

• A concrete rationale was developed for considering ISO9241-171 clauses to be included in the Policy

Results

• The major evaluation activity that was used to evaluate the Accessible Social Computing Policy was to provide examples• “Showing that some but not all satisfy some guidelines makes a

stronger case that all could and thus should.”• For each ISO 9241-171 guideline that applies to social computing

accessibility, an example was be given to show whether or not it is often implemented in its corresponding social computing aspect.

Results: The Accessible Social Computing

Policy• Section 8: General Guidelines• 8.1.2 Provide meaningful names (Web, Apps, Media, and

Tags)• 8.1.6 Provide names and labels that are short (Web, Apps,

Tags)• 8.2.5 Provide user-preference profiles (Web, Apps)• 8.2.6 Provide capability to use preference settings across

locations (Web, Apps)• 8.5.10 Enable appropriate presentation of tables (Web,

Apps)

Results: The Accessible Social Computing

Policy• Section 10: Outputs• 10.1.2 Enable user control of time-sensitive presentation information

(Web, Media)• 10.2.1 Enable users to adjust graphic attributes (Web, Apps)• 10.6.1 Use tone pattern rather than tone value to convey information

(Web, Apps, Media)• 10.6.3 Use an appropriate frequency range for non-speech audio

(Web, Apps. Media)• 10.6.8 Synchronise audio equivalents for visual events (Web, Apps,

Media)• 10.7.4 Position captions to not obscure content (Media)• 10.8.4 Update equivalent alternatives for media when the media

changes (Media)

Results: The Accessible Social Computing

Policy

• Section 9: Inputs• Section 11: In-line documentation, Help, and support services

Conclusion and Recommendations

• Most of the guidelines that have a very specific application to social computing are under Section 10 on outputs.• When evaluating the accessibility of social computing, one must also look at

the accessibility guidelines for general software development as well. • Other ISO guidelines could be used other than ISO 9241-171 to formulate a

more solid Policy. • The Accessible Social Computing Policy only serves as a supplement to

identify which principles in ISO 9241-171 will answer most pressing user accessibility issues. • The evaluation done on the Policy was only limited to my knowledge of social

computing.