UKOLN is supported by:

Holistic Approaches To Web Accessibility

Brian KellyUKOLNUniversity of BathBath, UK

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cultural-heritage/events/designing-for-disability-2008/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cultural-heritage/events/designing-for-disability-2008/

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

Tag for del.icio.us ‘designing-for-disability-2008'Tag for del.icio.us ‘designing-for-disability-2008'

Email:b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk

Twitter:http://twitter.com/briankelly/

Blog:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

2

About Me

Brian Kelly:• UK Web Focus: a national advisory post• Long-standing Web evangelist (since Jan 1993)• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath, with remit to

advise HE/FE and cultural heritage sectors• Interests include Web 2.0, standards, accessibility

and deployment strategies• Awarded the IWR Information Professional of the

Year in December 2007• Winner of Best Research Paper on

“Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” at ALT-C 2005

• Papers presented at International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008

Intr

od

uct

ion

3

A Fairy Tale for the C21st Benevolent emperor

• Wants to do good for all his subjects

• Told of a secret formulae which allowed all of his edicts to be read by everyone in his domain

• The justice minister was told to implement the magic formulae – he did (even if he didn’t understand it)

• The head of the police force was told to ensure everyone used it

• The subjects agreed that it was good (even through they too, didn’t understand it)

One little boy pointed out the truth. The magic doesn’t work. Today you will hear what the boy had to say!

One little boy pointed out the truth. The magic doesn’t work. Today you will hear what the boy had to say!

4

The WAI Model

WAI has been tremendously successful in raising awareness of Web accessibility and providing guidelines to achieve this.

WAI guidelines are based on:

• WCAG (Web Content …)• ATAG (Authoring Tools ..)• UAAG (User Agents …)

The model is simple to grasp. But is this model appropriate for the future? Does the model:

• Reflect the diversity of users & user environments• Reflect the diversity of Web usage• Reflect real-world technical environment and developments• Reflect real-world political and cultural environments

The Magic Formulae

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

5

Limitations Of The Model

This model:• Requires all three components to be implemented

in order for the WAI vision to be achieved • Is of limited use to end users who have no control

over browser or authoring tools developments• Is confusing – as many think WCAG is WAI

How does this model address:• Delays in full conformance? (We're still waiting for

"until user agents …" clause to be resolved)• Real-world reluctance to deploy new software

(issues of inertia, testing, costs, …)• Real world complexities

Is there a plan B in case this model fails to ever take off?Is it desirable to base legal requirements on an unproven theoretical framework?

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

6

WCAG Conformance

Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines. Several surveys carried out using automated tools (which gives upper limit on accessibility)

• DRC report: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based on 1,000 Web sites

• UK Museums report: 42% A, 3% AA conformance based on 124 Web sites

• UK Universities surveys (UKOLN, 2002, 2004): 43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites

Note that these figures aren’t of accessible Web site, only conformance with automated tests

ImplicationsThese low conformance levels can indicate:

• Organisations don't care• Guidelines are difficult to implement• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …

ImplicationsThese low conformance levels can indicate:

• Organisations don't care• Guidelines are difficult to implement• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

7

WCAG Difficulties

Certain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns:11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ...

• Promotes own technologies• Appears to ignore major improvements in

accessibility of non-W3C formats11.1 … and use the latest versions when supported

• Goes against project management guidelines• Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI

AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A! 3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars

• Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by browsers – this is an interoperability issue

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

8

Proprietary FormatsWCAG P2 requires use of W3C formatsThoughts:

• Reflects the idealism of the Web community in late 1990s

• The conveyor belt of great W3C formats has slowed down (anyone use SMIL, SVG, …)

• Software vendors are responding to WAI’s initiatives (formats, OS developments, …)

• Developments in non-Web areas (mobile phones, …) & integration with real-world (e.g. blended learning, …)

• Users care about the outcomes, not the way in which the outcomes are provided

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

9

DRC survey also carried out usability testing:• Exemplar accessible Web sites did not comply with

WCAG guidelines (WCAG A)• WCAG compliant sites (according to tools) were not

accessible or usable

DDA requires users to be able to access & use services

DDA – UK's Disability Discrimination ActDDA – UK's Disability Discrimination Act

Usability Issues (1)

"WCAG provides the highway code for accessibility on the information superhighway"

"Fine – but what if the accelerator and brake pedals differ on every car. I'll still crash!"

The subjectivity of usability guidelines seems to be recognised

"I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say"

Jakob Neilson

"I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say"

Jakob Neilson

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

10

Usability Issues (2)

What is the relationship between usability & accessibility?

Usability

Usability Accessibility

Accessibility

Accessibility

Usability

Usability

Accessibility

Usability Accessibility

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

11

Confusion

SiteMorse’s automated accessibility survey of UK disability organisations’ Web sites generated heated debate

• SiteMorse: Low WCAG conformance found:• Response: doesn’t matter, manual testing gives

OK results

What do such comments say about disability organisations’ views of WCAG ?

Note that the RNIB actively promote WCAG guidelines – and also promote use of accessible Flash, without flagging any inconsistencies.

Organisations may publicly support WCAG whilst rejecting (parts of) it.

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

12

Nitpicking?

“This is just nit-picking! WCAG is valuable – don’t knock it!”

WCAG is valuable, but we need to:• Build a robust framework for the future• Ensure clarity and avoid ambiguities to avoid

different interpretations• Reflect on experiences gained since 1999• Avoid dangers of inappropriate case law being set

Nightmare ScenarioCase taken to court in UK.Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies.Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished.

Nightmare ScenarioCase taken to court in UK.Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies.Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished.

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

13

Holistic Approach

1 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3

This approach reflects current UK emphasis on blended learning (rather than e-learning)

Kelly, Phipps & Swift1 have argued for a holistic framework for e-learning accessibility

This framework:• Focusses on the needs

of the learner• Requires accessible

learning outcomes, not necessarily e-learning resources

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

14

Previous Work (1)

Following on from first paper, a framework for applying WCAG in the real world (of flawed browsers, limited resources, etc) was described at W4A 2005.

Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. W4A 2005

15

Previous Work (2)

The need to address the context of use and the potential of AccessForAll metadata described at W4A 2005.

Tangram metaphor introduced to visualise a diversity of approaches

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines. Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F & Phipps, L. W4A 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland May 2006

16

Previous Work (3)

Application of our work in a wider context (e.g. cultural resources) described at W4A 2007.Paper introduced the stakeholder model and coined the term ‘Accessibility 2.0’ to describe this approach

Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes. Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. W4A 2007

What do you see? Is the answer to be found in the resource or in the reader’s interpretation ?

17

Universal Accessibility?

Normal Cancer

The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)

The Duck-RabbitCRAFT BREWERY

Holistic Scenario

18

Where Are We Today?

Our work:• Acknowledges limitations in WAI’s guidelines • Complements WAI’s developments to WCAG 2.0• Provides a realistic framework for development

activities• Seeks to avoid stifling of innovation by the

‘accessibility fundamentalist’ barrierAn

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

19

WAI Limitations

Limitations of WAI guidelines have been acknowledged:

“However, we recognize that standards are slow, and technology evolves quickly in the commercial marketplace. Innovation brings new customers and solidifies relationships with existing customers; Web 2.0 innovations also bring new types of professionals to the field, ones who care about the new dynamic medium. As technologies prove themselves, standardizing brings in the universality of the benefit, but necessarily follows this innovation. Therefore, this paper acknowledges and respects Web 2.0, discussing the issues and real world solutions.”

Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies: Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Cooper, M. W4A 2007

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

20

What’s Missing

Further work is needed:• In understanding how WCAG guidelines can be

used in a Web 2.0 context• In developing approaches for migrating from

WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0• In developing a more flexible and user-centred

approach to Web accessibility • In addressing more challenging areas of

accessibility, such as learning disabilities

These areas are addressed in W4A 2008 paper

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

21

WCAG In ContextWCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be:

• Perceivable • Operable• Understandable • Robust

But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do:

• “Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious”:Not universally understandable, now universally accessible, culturally-specific … but witty

• Adobe Flash, MS Word, …Are these formats essential to your corporate infrastructure and workflow?

• Web 2.0, Ajax, Blog, Wikis, UGC, …Do these provide useful services to your users?

Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable?

Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable?

WAI’s Scenario

22

Accessibility and Web 2.0

Reactions to Web 2.0 from “accessibility fundamentalists” (‘the truth is to be found in WCAG 1.0’) and Web 2.0 sceptics:

• It uses AJAX, and we know that a bad thing• You shouldn’t use Facebook, MySpace, … as it

breaks WCAG guidelines• Second Life is a no-no – it’s inherently

inaccessibleBut:

• AJAX can provide accessibility benefits• People with disabilities are using social networks –

should we stop them if they find this useful?• Judith finds Second Life a liberating experience

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

23

Second Life

A video clip shows Judith, a user with cerebral palsy, using Second Life with a headwand.

“Do you think that this will be a really useful tool for people who are unable to get around, who have problems of mobility in real life?” “Yes, because you can have friends without having to go out and physically find them”.

The danger is that organisations will ban SL as they feel if fails to comply with accessibility guidelines.

The danger is that organisations will ban SL as they feel if fails to comply with accessibility guidelines.

24

Social Networks (1)

Social networks (e.g. Facebook):• Are being used by people with disabilities• Evaluation of PWDs’ experiences (rather than

evaluation of the resource) is beginning• CAPCHA seems to be a barrier:

RNIB admit that solutions are not easy Removal of CAPCHA would provide a worse

environment for PWDs (more spam) Blended solutions may have a role (“ring this

number”)Need for:

• More evidence gathering• More advocacy & pressure

But to facilitate access to SNs not to undermine them

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

25

Social Networks (2)

Should we regard Facebook (for example):• As a stand-alone service?• As one of a range of access points and allow

users to chose their preferred environment? Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Personal Research Environments (PREs)

• Of increasing interest in education A focus on:

• Supporting personal choice• Providing data which can be surfaced in different

environment (via RSS and other technologies) • New media literacy skills

Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …

Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

26

Learning Disabilities

“WCAG 2.0 [does] not address all of the needs of people with disabilities, particularly cognitive, language, and learning disabilities”

How to address learning disability issues?• Research work at UWE• System aimed at health trainers who have learning

disabilities• Group will be trained to support health promotion

in learning disabilities community

Approaches:• Engagement with the users at initial design phase• Pragmatic approach based on ‘what works’• Experiences will be shared at later date

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

27

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 • 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’

Holistic Scenario

But how will this work in an environment of global uses of Web 2.0?

But how will this work in an environment of global uses of Web 2.0?

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

28

29The Web is Agreement

30

Where Are We In This View?

Web

WCAG

Web

IT

WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility• Motherhood and apple pie? • Demonstrably flawed after 10 years

e.g. Lilley: “99.99999% of the Web was invalid HTML. W3C pretended that didn’t exist.”

• So 99.9999% of Web isn’t WCAG AA conformant!

WCAG+other guidelines+user focus+blended accessibility = widening participation

• Not yet proven wrong, but ignores scale of Web

The Pixel of PerfectionThe Pixel of Perfection The Holistic HamletThe Holistic Hamlet

WAI

31

Kevin Kelly

32

Accessibility 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

Accessibility 1.0: • Handcrafted resources made accessible

Accessibility 2.0:• Institutional approaches to accessibility

Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

Accessibility 3.0:• Global approaches to accessibility

Work on accessibility metadata is underway, but is still at an early stage. Further discussion will not be given here.

33

A Fresh Look At Accessibility

We acknowledge that:• Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible• Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic,

national and discipline boundaries• An individual does not need a universally

accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource which is accessible to them

• Different communities may have different needs• Same person may have different needs at

different times and places• Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource• We find the term ‘inclusive’ more useful than

‘accessible to people with disabilities’

Accessibility 2.0

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

34

Getting ThereWeb 1.0:

• Focus on resources published by institutions• Focus on management of resources (CMSs)

Web 2.0:• Focus on users and user-generated content• Focus on reuse of resources (syndication, embedding, …)• Focus on user comments and discussions• Trust and openness

Accessibility 1.0:• Focus on accessibility of published resources• Focus on software to support publication processes

Accessibility 2.0:• Focus on accessibility of use of content rather than content• Blended accessibility cf potential of social networks to

facilitate discussions• Trust and openness: orgs taking reasonable measures;

involvement with users in design processes cf Kelly et al on design for people with learning disabilities

Accessibility 2.0

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

35

Alternative Resources

Public library example:• Presentation at national Public Library event• “And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve

developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it”• “What about accessibility?”• “Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new

legislation becomes into force”Blended approach:

• “What’s the purpose of the game?”• “To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents

get books”• “How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as

an alternative? This is an alternative approach to problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities”

Accessibility 2.0

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

36

Who’s Using These Approaches? (1a)

Tate’s i-Map project: early example of an award-winning approach to providing access to paintings for visual impaired users

• It used Flash ..!

• … to allow users to ‘participate’ in the creation of the painting

Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on “Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell

Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on “Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell

37

Who’s Using These Approaches? (1b)

I-Map project also used a blended approach, through provision of access to raised images

38

Who’s Using These Approaches? (2)

Wolverhampton Art Gallery are using a user-focused development approach to providing access to information about Bantcock House

39

Who’s Using These Approaches? (3)

How might a user-centred approach to learning disabilities work?

• 3 year project based at UWE has a focus is on accessibility of outcomes of a service rather than the resources

• Emphasis moves from the creator of the Web resources to the end user

• End user will be involved in content creation and also the design & creation of the system from the beginning of the development cycle through to its conclusion

• Purpose of this approach is not to try to create a system & content that is universally accessible but to try to maximise usefulness & usability for a targeted audience of learning disability users

• Goal aims to be achievable & be more relevant to the specific user group than an approach aimed at creating content by application of international guidelines.

Described in “One World, One Web … But Great Diversity”

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

40

Warning – Logos Don’t Create Accessible Pages!

Health warning: “This Web site has been awarded the Bobby 'AAA' rating”

• No, you’ve awarded yourself the logo

• Bobby (& many other tools) just provide automated checking

• Are the automated checks still correct after page updates?

• Bobby no longer exists! So which logo to go for?

• Are you more likely to be sued?• What about context & target

audience?• What does evidence suggest?

Logos? Just say no!

41

Review

Accessibility 1.0 – what we though we needed • WAI model is flawed • Evidence shows WAI approach is a political

success, but not implemented significantlyAccessibility 2.0 – what we should be doing today

• Holistic approach takes pragmatic view of WCAG’s successes

• Applies it in a user-focussed context based on institutional framework

Accessibility 3.0 – a possibility for the future• Builds on Social Web and seeks to apply social

graph to enhance accessibility of user services• Very early days• Need to remember that accessibility is a process &

not a destination!

42

Conclusions

There’s a need:• For accessibility researchers to gather evidence

on proposed solutions to accessibility• To explore ways in which changes in our

understandings can be adopted and deployedThis talk:

• Explores limitations of current approaches• Suggests alternative approaches

Future work:• Need to critique the critique• Need to develop better models for change control• Need to learn from the past

Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that the emperor was naked!

Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that the emperor was naked!

43

Questions

Questions are welcome