UKOLN is supported by:

Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes

Brian Kelly

UKOLN

University of Bath

Bath, UK

Co-Authors: David Sloan, Stephen Brown, Jane Seale, Helen Petrie, Patrick Lauke and Simon Ball

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2007/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2007/

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, SMS, 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, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.

Resources bookmarked using ‘w4a-2007' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘w4a-2007' tag

2

About This Paper

This paper:• Reviews limitations of WAI approach to Web

applicability (described at W4A 2005)• Describes holistic approach for e-learning

accessibility (described at W4A 2006)• Applies previous work to new ‘edge case’ of

culture on the Web• Introduces a Stakeholder Model to help ensure

sustainability of approaches to accessibility• Compares old and new approaches to Web

accessibility• Proposes ‘Accessibility 2.0’ as term to describe

approach which builds on WAI’s successes

3

W4A 2005: Reprise

At W4A 2005 we presented “Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity…”:

• The practical difficulties of using a “standard” to encapsulate design requirements to accommodate a diverse set of needs under a diverse set of circumstances

• The achievements and limitations of WCAG in supporting this

• The resultant difficulties (and absurdities) from legislation and policy – that makes inappropriate reference to WCAG

• Using the example of the e-learning sector we pointed the way to a more holistic view of Web accessibility

We received many positive comments on the ideas we presented

WAI’s Limitations

4

Limitations of the WAI Model

• WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents

• …and conformant users!• A common complaint of “standardistas” – “the

user needs to take responsibility…”• There is value in this argument – but there are

practical shortcomings• And user technophobia/laziness/lethargy is only

one obstacle How many users know they are “disabled”?

WAI’s Limitations

Also note increasing importance of evidence-based research. Various UK accessibility studies seem to find that lack of evidence of accessibility of Web sites for PWDs and conformance with WCAG guidelines!

Also note increasing importance of evidence-based research. Various UK accessibility studies seem to find that lack of evidence of accessibility of Web sites for PWDs and conformance with WCAG guidelines!

5

The Importance of Context

• We argue Web accessibility is about supporting users achieve real world goals

• From Beyer & Holzblatt (1998) – the more you know about your target audience the more you can design to support them

• So the goal of “universal accessibility” has changed to supporting a defined set of users in the best possible way…

• How can we use WCAG to achieve this?

WAI’s Limitations

6

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

7

Application To Culture

Accessibility for information / factual resources is easy

Accessibility for edge cases (learning, culture): • More challenging • Needed to allow providers of Web-based

cultural services to enhance accessibility• Generic model will provide broader

framework for variety of Web uses

8

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

9

Articulating the Approach

The "Tangram Metaphor" 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

Ou

r W

ork

10

Tangram Model & Testability

"WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing )

Issues:• What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success

criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")?• What about 'baselines' – context only known locally• What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'?

Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78

Tangram model can be used within WCAG• Distinguish between testable (ALT tags)

and subjective (content understandable)• Supports baselines

Baseline 1

Testable

Ou

r W

ork

11

Tangram ModelModel 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?)

• Make use of automated checking – but ensures emphasis is on user satisfaction

Guidelines/standards for/from:

• WAI• Usability• Organisational• Dyslexic • Learning difficulties• Legal• Management

(resources, …)• Interoperability• Accessibility metadata• Mobile Web• …

12

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

13

Repositories – Case StudyDiscussion on repositories list:

“Why PDFs of research papers? What about accessibility?”“Important battle is open access. Let’s not add extra complexities.”

My response:Open access is important (and PDF is easy) but let’s also:

• Engage with various stakeholders (incl. publishers)

• Develop (holistic) policies• Explore other options to

enhance accessibilityAnd I found Scribd – a Web 2.0 services which creates MP3 from MS Word/PDF

14

The Cathedral & The Bazaar 2.0

WAI Approach Proposed Approach

E-learning Blended learning

Centralised Devolved

Single solution Variety of solutions

Slow-moving Rapid response

Remote testing Testing in context

IT solution Blended solutions

Objective testing Context to testing

Medical model Social model

Accessibility as a thing Accessibility as a process

Clear destination (AAA) Focus on the journey

Accessibility as a cathedral Accessibility as a bazaar

15

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’

16

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’

17

Our Next Steps

Accessibility Summit II:• Held at JISC TechDis in Nov 2006• 19 invited accessibility researchers, practitioners &

policy makers in HE, public sector & disability support organisations

• Agreement on various concerns of WAI’s approach• Recommendation to develop roadmap for next steps

Museums and Web 2007 Professional Forum:• 50+ participants at international conference in April• Further agreement on need to build richer

approaches to accessibility for cultural heritage orgs• Accessibility 2.0 term added to Museums Wiki

18

Issues For W3C & WAI

Our approaches:• Developed by various accessibility researchers &

practitioners and described in peer-reviewed papers• Can coexist with W3C approaches e.g. PICS & P3P

(W3C doesn’t mandate social directions but provides technical framework which can be used in diversity of political & social cultures)

W3C is (used to) facing criticisms:• Semantic Web vs semantic Web• Web Services vs REST• XHTML 2.0 vs HTML 5.0

Isn’t it time WAI engages with concerns and moves on from its initial model? Has WAI developed a risk strategy in case of failure of WCAG to be adopted?

19

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

20

Questions

Questions are welcome