Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines

• 1.
  Contextual Web Accessibility- Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK UKOLN is supported by: dmag (Digital Media Access Group) is hosted by the University of Dundee Co-Authors: Andy Heath, Helen Petrie, Fraser Hamilton & Lawrie Phipps David Sloan DMAG University of Dundee Dundee, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2006/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)
• 2.
  W4A 2005: RepriseAt 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
• 3.
  One Year On– Where are We? WCAG 2.0 is ever closer The “baseline” concept introduced with WCAG 2.0 is an excellent development But – are we still trying to promote a “universally accessible Web” at the expense of “optimally accessible information, communication, education, entertainment, services…”?
• 4.
  Limitations of theWAI 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”?
• 5.
  The Importance ofContext 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? DS  BK
• 6.
  The Challenges Tosummarise: WAI has been a great political success The underlying principles are widely accepted However The WAI model has its limitations Accessibility of digital resources can be provided in a variety of ways Blended approaches may be relevant in some areas Other areas may have differing views and definitions of "accessibility" and disability (cf IMS AccessForAll) The challenges: Do we ignore such complexities? Do we abandon the WAI approach and look for alternatives? Do we look for an approach which can leverage WAI's successes whilst allowing for a diversity of solutions?
• 7.
  Holistic Approach 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 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)
• 8.
  Accessibility in ContextA framework has been developed which places accessibility & usability within a wider context: The context A range of policies A compliance regime Purpose Sector Funding Resources Context Accessibility/Usability Privacy Policies … Finance External Self-assessment Penalties Learning Compliance Digital Library Programme Broken Standards Research … External factors: Institutional issues (funds, expertise, policies, security…) External factors: Legal issues; cultural factors; … This approach embraces relativism and context rather than the current absolute approach Accessibility guidelines should be usable in wider context
• 9.
  Articulating the ApproachThe "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
• 10.
  Tangram Model Modelallows 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 …
• 11.
  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
• 12.
  The Cathedral &The Bazaar WAI Approach: Large-scale and ambitious –but slow-moving External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems) Based on single approach ("you must …") Web-centric approach Cathedral approach to development Holistic Approach: Modular & can be more rapid-moving & responsive Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to …" Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility Bazaar approach to development " I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say “ J Neilson WCAG 2.0’s ‘baseline’ seems to recognise a contextual view 
• 13.
  The Legal FrameworkThis 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
• 14.
  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 Contextual approach & tangram metaphor aim to help inform such developments Should the WAI approach be more open about contextualisation or should this be applied externally? There's a need to an evidence-based approach and less ideology
• 15.
  Questions Questions arewelcome Note resources cited in the talk are bookmarked in del.icio.us using tag '' w4a-2006-sloan-kelly "