ukoln is supported by: web accessibility 2.0: revisiting our approaches to web accessibility brian...
TRANSCRIPT
UKOLN is supported by:
Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/nadp-2008/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/nadp-2008/
This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)
Acceptable Use PolicyRecording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.
Acceptable Use PolicyRecording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.
Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp-2008' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp-2008' tag
Email:[email protected]:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/
2
About Me
Brian Kelly:• National Web adviser to HE/FE and
cultural heritage sectors• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath• Interests include:
Standards Web preservation Web 2.0 Web accessibility
• Blog covering these topics discussed at <http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/>
3
About You
What is your interest in Web accessibility?
What do you hope to gain from this session?
4
My Web Accessibility Work
Several papers written with various accessibility researchers / practitioners including:
• Paper on a Holistic Approach to e-Learning Accessibility (CJLT 2004)
• Limitations of WAI approach to Web applicability (W4A 2005)
• Application of holistic approach for e-learning accessibility in WAI context (W4A 2006)
• Application of work to new ‘edge case’ of culture on the Web and stakeholder model (W4A 2007)
• Application of work to a Web 2.0 environment (W4A 2008)
5
The WAI Approach
W3C WAI developed a three-component model for “universal access to Web resources”:
• Content guidelines (WCAG)• Guidelines for browsers/
user agents (UAAG)• Guidelines for authoring tools (ATAG)
Impact:• Tremendous political success internationally• Expectations that public sector bodies will conform
with WCAG guidelines• Provide an understandable approach for developers
But …
Chisholm & Henry, 2005
6
Limitations of the WAI Approach
Content guidelines outdatedContent guidelines naive
Marketplace failed to deliver compliant browsers
Institutions failed to upgrade browsers
Users weren’t motivated/have skills to upgrade their browsers
Content guidelines difficult to implement due to lack of decent authoring tools
Marketplace failed to deliver compliant authoring tools
Institutions failed to install compliant authoring tools
Users weren’t motivated to change their authoring tools
Content guidelines too theoretical
WCAGWCAG
ATAGATAG UAAGUAAG
WAI guidelines are flawed; WAI model is broken and approach fails to take into
account context, personalisation, resource implications, blended approaches, …
WAI guidelines are flawed; WAI model is broken and approach fails to take into
account context, personalisation, resource implications, blended approaches, …
Users not necessarily motivated to use accessibility features
7
Universal Accessibility?
Normal Cancer Man against snow, Austrian Tirol 1974, reproduced with permission of the photographer: Professor Paul Hill
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
The Duck-RabbitCRAFT BREWERY
8
Holistic Approach
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference
This approach reflects emphasis in UK on blended learning (rather than e-learning)
Kelly, Phipps & Swift developed a blended approach to e-learning accessibility
This approach:• Focusses on the needs
of the learner• Requires accessible
learning outcomes, not necessarily e-learning resources
Holistic Approach
9
Articulating the ApproachThe "Tangram Metaphor“ (Sloan et al, W4A 2006) 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
This approach:• Encourages developers
to think about a diversity of solutions
• Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user
10
Tangram Model
Note that similar moves to modularity are the norm in many W3C standards
Note that similar moves to modularity are the norm in many W3C standards
Model allows us to:• Focuses on end solution rather
than individual components• Provided solutions tailored for
end user• Doesn't limit scope (can you
do better than WAI AAA?)• Use automated checking – but
ensures emphasis is on user satisfaction
Guidelines/standards for/from:
• WAI• Usability• Organisational• Dyslexic • Learning difficulties• Legal• Management
(resources, …)• Interoperability (e.g.
HTML validity)• Accessibility metadata• Mobile Web• …
11
Stakeholder ModelCommon approach:
• Focus on Web author • Sometimes user involved• Sometimes led by policy-makers
This approach:• Often results in lack of
sustainability• Web accessibility regarded as
‘techie’• Not integrated with wider
accessibility issues• Not integrated with training,
development, …There’s a real need to integrate approaches to accessibility more closely with (diversity of) service providers
Jane Seale
12
Accessibility 2.0
Need to build on WAI’s successes, whilst articulating a more sophisticated approach. Accessibility 2.0:
• User-focussed: It’s about satisfying user’s needs• Rich set of stakeholders: More than the author
and the user• Always beta: Accessibility is hard, so we’re
continually learning• Flexibility: There’s not a single solution for all use
cases• Diversity: There’s also diversity in society’s views
on accessibility (e.g. widening participation, not universal accessibility)
• Blended solutions: Focus on ‘accessibility’ and not just ‘Web accessibility’
13
The Legal Framework
This approach is well-suited for the UK legal framework:
SENDA/DDA legislation requires "organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly"
Note that the legislation is:• Technologically neutral• Backwards and forwards compatible• Avoids version control complexities• The legislation also covers usability, as well as
accessibility
Other country’s legislation also talks about ‘reasonable measures’
Other country’s legislation also talks about ‘reasonable measures’
14
How?
Approaches to Web accessibility:• Holistic• User-focussed, not primarily about technologies• About enrichment, not about dumbing down or
control
How?• Decide on purposes of services first, then seek to
make solution accessible• Seek to implement established (and usable)
guidelines .. but be prepared to ignore if their use would be unreasonable
• Share best practices and experiences … this can help to establish what is reasonable
15
Conclusions
To conclude:• WAI has provided a valuable starting point• Need to develop a richer underlying model • Need for Web accessibility to be placed in wider
content• There's a need to an evidence-based approach
and less ideology• Contextual approach & tangram metaphor aim to
help inform such developments• Accessibility 2.0 term can articulate a renewed
approach• Organisation need to take responsibility for
decision-making, and not just rely on compliance with a simple check-list
16
Criticisms
But what do I do?
WCAG gives me something I can use to commission development work
It may not be perfect, but its raised awareness and allowed legislation/guidelines to be implemented
…
What do you think?What do you think?
17
Questions
Questions and general discussion