UKOLN is supported by:
Beyond Compliance - A Holistic Approach to Web Accessibility
Brian KellyUK Web FocusUKOLNUniversity of BathBath, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/techshare-2007/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/techshare-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 ‘techshare-2007' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘techshare-2007' tag
2
About This Talk
Work carried our by accessibility researchers in the UK:• 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 (described at W4A 2007)• Introduces a Stakeholder Model to help ensure
sustainability of approaches to accessibility• Proposes ‘Accessibility 2.0’ as term to describe
approach which builds on WAI’s successes
Acknowledgements to co-authors: Profs Helen Petrie & Stephen Brown and David Sloan, Jane Seale, Lawrie Phipps, Simon Ball, Patrick Lauke, Andy Heath and Fraser Hamilton
Acknowledgements to co-authors: Profs Helen Petrie & Stephen Brown and David Sloan, Jane Seale, Lawrie Phipps, Simon Ball, Patrick Lauke, Andy Heath and Fraser Hamilton
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 and contexts
• 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 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 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 SiteMorse Simplicities
SiteMorse’s automated tool showed poor WCAG compliance across several well-known UK disability organisations.
The responses from the disability organisations belittled the findings of automated tools and give a much greater emphasis of testing by users.
TechDis News Item, Jan 2005
WebExact (Bobby) shows problems
WAI’s Limitations
If disability bodies find compliance with guidelines difficult does this mean:
• They don’t care about accessibility• Accessibility is hard & costly• The guidelines have flaws
(and note legal ramifications if an inaccessible Web site cites such data in their defence)
If disability bodies find compliance with guidelines difficult does this mean:
• They don’t care about accessibility• Accessibility is hard & costly• The guidelines have flaws
(and note legal ramifications if an inaccessible Web site cites such data in their defence)
6
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
Note in the UK ‘widening participation’ seems to be preferred to ‘universal accessibility’ – with the latter sometimes leading to universal inaccessibility (“we can’t use JavaScript so we’ll not allow anyone to gain benefits it can provide” )
Note in the UK ‘widening participation’ seems to be preferred to ‘universal accessibility’ – with the latter sometimes leading to universal inaccessibility (“we can’t use JavaScript so we’ll not allow anyone to gain benefits it can provide” )
7
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
8
Application To Culture
Accessibility for information / factual resources is easy(ish)Accessibility for edge cases including learning, culture, research, gaming, communications, assertion of identity (teenagers on MySpace), …:
• 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
Holistic Approach
9
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
Holistic Approach
10
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
Holistic Approach
11
Tangram Model & Testability
Baseline 1
Testable
"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 78Tangram model can be used within WCAG
• Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable)
• Supports baselines• Discussions with developers on
prioritisation of automated testing
Holistic Approach
12
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• …
13
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, …• Priorities not negotiated with others
There’s a need to integrate approaches to accessibility more closely with (diversity of) service providers
14
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:
• Enhanced accessibility from MS Word master & Flash interface
15
The Cathedral & The Bazaar 2.0
Traditional 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
16
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’
17
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’
18
Our Next Steps
Accessibility Summit II:• Held at JISC TechDis offices, York 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: more
research, evidence-gathering, engagement, …
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
19
The Good News
Our approaches have helped inform WCAG 2.0 developmentsWCAG 2.0:
• Technology neutral • Based on four key principles (normative) (POUR):
Perceivable Operable Understandable Robust
• Separate (informative) guidelines for HTML• Reflects out holistic approaches
The challenges:• Providing a context outside of the principles
e.g. “Super Cali go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious”• Testing in context • Commissioning
20
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
21
Questions
Questions are welcome