A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk

Web Accessibility: Limitations Of Conventional ApproachesBrian KellyUKOLNUniversity of BathBathEmailB.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk

UKOLN is supported by:

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/accessibility-summit-2006-11/

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.

This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

Resources bookmarked with 'accessibility-summit-2006-11' tag

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 2

ContentsStrengths of WAI Approach

• High profile• Internationally recognised

Limitations• WAI Model• WCAG• Universal or contextual solutions• Accessibility, usability, interoperability• WCAG can limits what we can do• Uncertain future

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 3

Background: W3C WAI & WCAGW3C (World Wide Web Consortium):

• Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards

WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative):• W3C group responsible for developing guidelines

which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible

WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines):• One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG

provides advice of accessibility on Web content (e.g. HTML pages)

• Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools (ATAG)

WA

I App

roac

h

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 4

WAI StrengthsWAI work:

• Provides valuable guidelines for helping to make Web sites more accessible

• Widely recognised• Widely adopted

Support by various tools:• WebXact (Bobby)• Cynthia Says• …

WA

I App

roac

h

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 5

The WAI ModelThe WAI model for Web accessibility is based on three components:

• Content• Authoring Tools• Browsers

Assumption: do three right universal accessibilityBut:

• We have no control over browsers & authoring tools• The browsers and authoring tools aren't great• The content guidelines are flawed• Is universal accessibility really possible?

WA

I App

roac

h

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 6

Interpretation of WAI WCAGHow do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images; HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …):

• Mandatory, with following characteristics:Clearly defined rules ObjectiveChecking mostly objectivePenalties for non-complianceSimilar to checking that HTML complies with the

standard

• Advisory, with following characteristics:Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in contextIt's about providing useful, usable resourcesIt's contextualChecking mostly subjectiveIt's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed

Which reflects your views most closely?

BK

WA

I App

roac

h

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 7

Limitations of the WAI ModelWAI approach has shortcomings:

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

• …and conformant users!• WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C

formats; must use latest versions; …")• Has a Web-only view of the world:

What about other IT solutions? What about blended (real world) solutions?

• Has a belief in a single universal solution: But isn't accessibility a very complex issue Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to

be developed at the first attempt?

Lim

itatio

ns

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 8

Diversity - ContentWAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites:

• Here’s the train timetable – I want the information and I want it now

• This is reasonable and desirable

But is this approach always relevant to e-learning:

• Here’s something – you must interpret it (and being wrong can be part of the learning process)

Or culture:• Here’s the Mona Lisa – you

decide why she is smiling

Alte

rnat

ives

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 9

Jordan’s Pleasure PrincipleEven for informational resources, we may not always choose to make information readily accessible“Super Calli Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious!”

• Breaks draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines on “Content must be understandable”

• But brings a smile to many (but not all)

Argument:• We need: firstly (A) food and then (B) shelter.

Afterwards we want (C) soft furnishing Can apply “Jordan’s Pleasure Principle” to informational content:

• We want information, but we also want it provided in a pleasurable way

CB

A

Alte

rnat

ives

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 10

Usability & InteroperabilityWhat about:

• Usability• Interoperability

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp

Example:• Long, application-specific URLs can cause

accessibility/usability and interoperability problemsAddition Problems:

• We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users) We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly) We don’t need to address usability

The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 11

Reflection On The PastWAI:

• Political success, but lack of rigourous examination of its shortcomings

Usage: • WAI can be used as a control mechanism (you

can’t use x) even if can provide valuable user benefits

Context: • Assumption about universal solutions (therefore

no debate) which doesn’t reflect reality

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 12

Reflection On The PresentBSI PAS 78:

• Provides a context to use of WAI• Acknowledges there may be solutions

which break WAI guidelines: Flash & PDF can provide useful services and

accessibility issues can be addressed Neutral on technologies

• Need to: Determine the underlying principles Look to build on this for the future

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 13

The Future – WCAG 2.0?WCAG 2.0:

• Long time in development• Joe Clarke’s “To Hell With WCAG 2.0”

posting unleashed much debate• Useful summaries from The Pickards

and @Media 2006 session• Issues:

• It’s confusing• It’s too liberal• It’s too tech--centric• ..

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 14

Steven Downes’ BlogPosting, May 2006

• Well known for his writing on accessibility, Joe Clark slams WCAG 2.0. … "The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals for meetings." And the result, writes Clark, is predictable: a confused, convoluted and dysfunctional set of standards.

Response (former WAI WG member):• Oh, I think it's worse than Joe writes. As I see it, the WCAG

2.0 accomplishes two things. First, it makes it less likely that sites will ever really be accessible to persons with disabilities. Second, it makes the price of admission for an ostensibly accessible site (i.e. one that "meets" the guidelines) quite high.

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk 15

ConclusionsTo conclude:

• WAI has been a political success• But the future seems uncertain• Need to:

Be open about limitations and our experiences Be user-focussed (?) Build an underlying model Seek consensus A roadmap for the future

Con

clus

ions

Any Questions?