DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT Accessible to All JASIG Summer 2003 Ian Dolphin Robert Sherratt

DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECTDIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT

Accessible to AllJASIG Summer 2003

Ian Dolphin Robert Sherratt

DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT

Covering

• Background

• Legal Frameworks (students and staff)

• Content Management Solution

• uPortal and Accessibility

• Conclusions


The Digital University Project

• Planned over the summer of 2001

• Senior Management buy-in and support

• Flexible structure with cross-institutional steering group

• Two initial development strands

– Institutional web portal

– Web content management


First Targets: Students and Staff• Core database applications - Ingres

• Web based email client – IMP

• Library systems - Innovative

• Staff Intranet - home-grown, PERL etc

• VLE/LMS – BlackBoard L1 + Merlin

• External applications - identification


Accessibility: Legal Frameworks• United States

– Americans with Disabilities Act– Section 504 & 508 Rehabilitation Act– Section 255 Telecommunications Act

• United Kingdom– Disability Discrimination Act 1995– Special Educational Needs & Disability Act 2001

• European Union– European Employment Directive (by 2006)

• Australia– Disability Discrimination Act 1992– Telecommunications Act 1997


In the US…• ADA: right to be able to access and use any facilities

and programs available to other members of the public. • Section 255 of the Telecoms Act: manufacturers of telecom

products and services make them accessible to people with disabilities whenever "readily achievable".

• Rehabilitation Act – Section 504 “reasonable adjustment” in the

workplace– Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Federal Agencies

develop, procure, maintain, or use only those electronic and IT systems which comply with a set of accessibility standards, unless this places an "undue burden" on the Agency.


US: WAI/WCAG and s 508

• WCAG Level A (Priority 1) conformant site needs additional work in the 5 areas of– Scripts

– Applets

– Forms

– Navigation

– Timed response feedback

To be s 508 conformant


US: WAI/WCAG and s 508

• S 508 conformant site needs additional work in the 4 areas of

– Auditory description of visual track

– Identify changes in natural language of text

– Equivalents for dynamic content

– Clarity of language

To be WAI/WCAG Level A (Priority 1) conformant


US case experience

• Access Now/Gumson vs Southwestern Airlines

• Ruling that ADA does not apply to the internet but to specified physical spaces

• Specific rejection of WAI/WCAG specs as not "a generally accepted authority."


In the UK

• Special Educational Needs & Disability Act 2001 applies Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to education from Sept 2002

• Institutions should make “reasonable adjustments” enabling access to “student services”

• Disabled students should not be placed at “substantial disadvantage”

• Anticipatory legislation


BUT …

“Less favourable” treatment may be justified:

• Maintain academic standards

• Prohibitive cost

• Affects the interests of other students

• Impacts on health and safety


In the European Union …

• Community Institutions must “take account” of needs of disabled peopleAmsterdam Treaty - Declaration 22

• “Public sector web sites … must be designed to be accessible to ensure that citizens with disabilities can access information and take full advantage of the potential for e-government.“eEurope Action Plan, Feira Council, June 2000

• EED: "reasonable accommodation" for disabled employees by 2006


EU: accessibility & education• Widening participation and Design-for-All

• European Union/European Commission Actions

– Tendering criteria modified to include e-accessibility

– Framework Programme VI modified

– Promotion via WAI-DA project

• Legislative variance across member states

• ESOs identify standards as basis for legislation


In Australia• Disability Discrimination Act 1992

– Encourages organisational “Disability Action Plan”

• Telecommunications Act 1997– Universal Service Obligations include equipment

for disabled people

• Funding for consumer groups such as TEDICORE (Telecommunications and Disability Consumer Representation)

• Australian Communications Industry Forum


Australian case experience

• Scott vs Telstra 1995• Failure to provide a text telephone ruled

discriminatory

• Maguire vs SOCOG 2000• Sections of web site for Sydney Olympics

inaccessible ruled discriminatory


Summary

• UK and EU likely to reference WAI/WCAG Priority Levels

– In legislation (EU)

– In cases (UK)

• US explicit rejection of WAI/WCAG specs

• Australian framework (with active consumer group involvement) actively promoted by EU


Content Management: Resolving Chaos

• The Web: it’s not amateur hour anymore

• Web tools by Heinz – 57 varieties of editor

– Technical support nightmare

– Human Resource nightmare

• Accessibility “test case” – any volunteers?

• Aggregating web pages through portal: GIGO


Content Management: Solutions• Solution for sites and portal channels

• Caveat: 2 years ago, but watching…

• Almost universally expensive/overpriced

• Frequently inflexible

• Not designed for use by HEI


Content Management: Technology• Not “Build or buy, but build and buy”• db solution utilising current licences• Edit basic content within secure web page• Design templates

– XHTML output (now) > XSLT (future)– base design – WAI/WCAG Priority 1– high contrast design – WAI/WCAG Priority 3

• Support rudimentary, but flexible workflow





Content Management Process

• Sensitivity to cultures of departments

• “What do you need to do?”

• Information design & architecture first

• Flexible “toolkit” approach

• Clear responsibilities and ownership


Enter/ edit

Preview

Quality Assure

Publish

Maintain

1

2

3

4

5


“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”


uPortal and Accessibility: Goals• To create a portal that enables all users

to have equal access to information

• As far as possible enable use without Assistive Technologies (direct access)

• Facilitate access for Assistive Technologies (compatible access)

• Address visual impairments/motor disabilities first


Design

• uPortal provides flexibility

• Look and feel

– skins for different visual impairments

• Structural layout

– how the content is presented

• Simplify the portal design


Tools/Testing

• Automated tools to check conformance– Bobby – check for WAI/508

• (http://bobby.watchfire.com)

– A-Prompt, LIFT

• Test with assistive technology– e.g. screen readers

• Test with users


Look and feel

• Update the CSS and create new graphics

• Two skins

– base – University visual identity

– high contrast – Visual impairments

• Other issues

– font sizes


New skins – base version


New skins - High contrast


Layout

• Use tab/column default scheme

• edit nested-tables.xsl– webpages/stylesheets/org/jasig/portal/layout/tab-column/nested-

tables

• 4 main sections

– Header, Navigation, Content and Channel


• Aggregate all the functionality into one visual layer

• Simplify by removing the tab graphics and login channel

• Screen reader has immediate access to navigation

• Keyboard shortcuts using accesskey attribute

Header & Navigation


Header & Navigation – High contrast• nested-tables.xsl checks the skin

<xsl:if test="$skin='hull'">

…. </xsl:if>

<xsl:if test="$skin='hullac'">

<div class="uportal-text-ac2">THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL</div>

<div class="uportal-text-ac">port.hull.ac.uk</div>

</xsl:if>


Content


Channel


Results• Work in progress

– can be used without assistive technology– access for AT– skin for visual impairment– enabled some keyboard access

• Outstanding – To pass WAI/WCAG Priority 2 needs to

• use a public identifier in a DOCTYPE statement• warn users about pop-up windows or when changing the active window

– Base version also needs to • use relative sizing and positioning (% values) rather than absolute (pixels)

– Section 508• Passes

– Finer grained user choices


Issues for portal implementation• Grey areas:

– Resources and links external to institution

– Distance learners

• Aggregated systems presented via portal

– Portal as conformant “wrapper”?

– Presentation oriented web services (WSRP)


Practically …

• Don’t second guess “Reasonable Adjustment/etc” – Use automated conformance tools

– BUT, test with real users

– AND test with variety of assistive technologies

• Document every step…

• Access All Areas (http://www.techdis.ac.uk/accessallareas/)

Documents

DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT Accessible to All JASIG Summer 2003 Ian Dolphin Robert Sherratt