UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian...

17
UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ conferences/nadp-2008/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp- 2008' tag Email: [email protected] Blog: http:// ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

Transcript of UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian...

Page 1: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

UKOLN is supported by:

Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility

Brian Kelly

UKOLN

University of Bath

Bath, UK

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/nadp-2008/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/nadp-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.

Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp-2008' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp-2008' tag

Email:[email protected]:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

Page 2: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

2

About Me

Brian Kelly:• National Web adviser to HE/FE and

cultural heritage sectors• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath• Interests include:

Standards Web preservation Web 2.0 Web accessibility

• Blog covering these topics discussed at <http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/>

Page 3: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

3

About You

What is your interest in Web accessibility?

What do you hope to gain from this session?

Page 4: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

4

My Web Accessibility Work

Several papers written with various accessibility researchers / practitioners including:

• Paper on a Holistic Approach to e-Learning Accessibility (CJLT 2004)

• Limitations of WAI approach to Web applicability (W4A 2005)

• Application of holistic approach for e-learning accessibility in WAI context (W4A 2006)

• Application of work to new ‘edge case’ of culture on the Web and stakeholder model (W4A 2007)

• Application of work to a Web 2.0 environment (W4A 2008)

Page 5: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

5

The WAI Approach

W3C WAI developed a three-component model for “universal access to Web resources”:

• Content guidelines (WCAG)• Guidelines for browsers/

user agents (UAAG)• Guidelines for authoring tools (ATAG)

Impact:• Tremendous political success internationally• Expectations that public sector bodies will conform

with WCAG guidelines• Provide an understandable approach for developers

But …

Chisholm & Henry, 2005

Page 6: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

6

Limitations of the WAI Approach

Content guidelines outdatedContent guidelines naive

Marketplace failed to deliver compliant browsers

Institutions failed to upgrade browsers

Users weren’t motivated/have skills to upgrade their browsers

Content guidelines difficult to implement due to lack of decent authoring tools

Marketplace failed to deliver compliant authoring tools

Institutions failed to install compliant authoring tools

Users weren’t motivated to change their authoring tools

Content guidelines too theoretical

WCAGWCAG

ATAGATAG UAAGUAAG

WAI guidelines are flawed; WAI model is broken and approach fails to take into

account context, personalisation, resource implications, blended approaches, …

WAI guidelines are flawed; WAI model is broken and approach fails to take into

account context, personalisation, resource implications, blended approaches, …

Users not necessarily motivated to use accessibility features

Page 7: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

7

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

Page 8: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

8

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

Page 9: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

9

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

Page 10: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

10

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• …

Page 11: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

11

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

Jane Seale

Page 12: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

12

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’

Page 13: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

13

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’

Page 14: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

14

How?

Approaches to Web accessibility:• Holistic• User-focussed, not primarily about technologies• About enrichment, not about dumbing down or

control

How?• Decide on purposes of services first, then seek to

make solution accessible• Seek to implement established (and usable)

guidelines .. but be prepared to ignore if their use would be unreasonable

• Share best practices and experiences … this can help to establish what is reasonable

Page 15: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

15

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• Organisation need to take responsibility for

decision-making, and not just rely on compliance with a simple check-list

Page 16: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

16

Criticisms

But what do I do?

WCAG gives me something I can use to commission development work

It may not be perfect, but its raised awareness and allowed legislation/guidelines to be implemented

What do you think?What do you think?

Page 17: UKOLN is supported by: Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK

17

Questions

Questions and general discussion