1. Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources! Brian Kelly Innovation Advocate Cetis University of Bolton Bolton, UK Contact Details Email: ukwebfocus@gmail.com Twitter: @briankelly Cetis Web site: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/ 1 Slides and further information available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/

2. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements are given to the co-authors of the holistic accessibility series of peer-reviewed papers: Elaine Swift (2004) Lawrie Phipps (2004, 2005, 2006) David Sloan (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) Helen Petrie (2005, 2006, 2007) Fraser Hamilton (2005, 2006) Caro Howell (2005) Andy Heath (2006) Stephen Brown (2007, 2009) Jane Seale (2007, 2009) Patrick Lauke (2007, 2009) Simon Ball (2007, 2009) Liddy Nevile (2008, 2009) EA Draffan (2008) Sotiris Fanou (2008, 2009) Stuart Smith (2009) Ruth Ellison (2009) Lisa Herrod (2009) Sarah Lewthwaite (2010, 2012) Martyn Cooper (2012) 2 All papers are available from Opus the University of Bath institutional repository: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/view/person_id/588.html Acknowledgements are also given to Jonathan Hassell and Dominik Lukeš, co-authors of a recent Ariadne article: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue71/kelly-et-al

3. Abstract Standardisation work for web accessibility has focused primarily on conformance of digital resources with a series of checkpoints. But as Cooper et al have argued "web accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which are the focus of WAI standardisation activities. It can therefore be inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on metrics only associated with properties of the resource." This talk reviews the approaches which have been developed by accessibility researchers and practitioners in the UK since 2005 and complementary standardisation work which resulted in the BS 8878 Code of Practice for Web Accessibility. Introduction 3

4. My Previous Work History Promoting WAI to UK Universities Articulating flaws Realisation of flaws in WAI’s model 4 New approaches Timeline of my involvement in Web accessibility work http://www.dipity.com/briankelly/Web_Accessibility_Timeline_For_Brian_Kelly/

5. History Developing and refining alternative approaches Critique of WCAG metrics History 5 In Jan 2009 work presented at OZeWAI and subsequent discussions led to new paper with Australian insights provided by Lisa Herrod and Ruth Ellison.

6. OZeWAI 6

7. What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me? "What can be done to help them get all Victoria Council websites to be AA conformant?" "HTML 5 accessibility overview" "accessibility support and features of present-generation mobile devices" "access Features for schema.org / ISO 24751" "An update on W3C/WAI activities and outputs " “The main issues in getting government to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must be for the industry who are helping government over the next 12 months to the end of the NTS." "Accessible modern video for all" OZeWAI 7

8. What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me? "What can be done to help them get all Victoria Council websites to be AA conformant?" "HTML 5 accessibility overview" "accessibility support and features of present-generation mobile devices" "access Features for schema.org / ISO 24751" "An update on W3C/WAI activities and outputs " What have they in common? Accessibility is about digital content & tools: ensuring that Web content conforms with WCAG guidelines; ensuring that Web developers and content authors are aware of and able to exploit accessibility features in languages (HTML5) and tools (e.g. Drupal) and other technical developments (e.g schema.org and RDF application profiles). “The main issues in getting government to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must be for the industry who are helping government over the next 12 months to the end of the NTS." "Accessible modern video for all" OZeWAI 8

9. What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013? Other OZeWAI 2013 sessions cover broader issues: SOCITM surveys cover wider issues: usability/functionality/accessibility "As web accessibility professionals, we should be primarily concerned with serving the needs of web users, not developers" “Do we need a different view point if we are ever going to be able to help developers understand how to take the first crucial steps in the right direction?" OZeWAI 9

10. What’s Missing? Some thoughts on issues which appear to be missing from the OZeWAI 2013 conference Standards beyond resources / describing resources The ‘post-digital’ environment e.g. blended accessibility for blended learning Critiques and concerns beyond the technical / usability camps: e.g. disability theorists and sociologist perspectives on disability considerations To be discussed after looking a historical perspective on Web accessibility activities OZeWAI 10

11. A Controversial View? This paper argues that web accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which are the focus of WAI standardisation activities. It can therefore be inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on metrics only associated with properties of the resource. 11 Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S., 2012. A Challenge to Web Accessibility Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and Processes First. In: W4A 2012: 9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility.

12. Is Accessibility Really Complex? Is web accessibility really “determined by complex political, social and other contextual factors”? Surely it’s about: A simple set of rules to be applied to web resources Legislation which mandates organisations to use the rule Education on how to implement the rules 12 Looking Back

13. Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. 13 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3. Looking Back

14. Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. 14 Looking Back Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3.

15. Learning Accessibility Before the Web “consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. However using our model the teacher would identify the learning experiences (perhaps selection of minerals in their natural environment and working in a team) and seek equivalent learning experiences (perhaps providing the student with 3G phone technologies, videos, for use in selecting the mineral, followed by team-building activities back at the base camp).” 15 Looking Back Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3.

16. From Web to Blended Accessibility 16 Holistic model focuses on accessibility of learner’s needs. WAI model is based solely on characteristics of Web resource and tools to create and view resources. 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. Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), May 2005. The learner’s needs can be addressed by a variety of solutions: Web, other IT and real world. Looking Back

17. The Post-Digital World In the 1990s we were fascinated by technologies such as the Web Today and near future: Technologies pervasive yet invisible What are the implications for Web practices in a post-digital age? 17 What Will The Post-digital Era Mean For Brands? Amy Edel-Vaughn, Interbrand blog, 7 August, 2012 Ideas based on Postdigital: Escaping the Kingdom of the New?, Dave White, TALL blog, 19 June 2009, Is sending and reading a tweet a Web action, covered by Web practices such as WCAG? What about sending a text message?

18. WCAG 2.0’s Four Principles WCAG 2.0 introduced four key principles. Content must be: 1.Perceivable 2.Operable 3.Understandable - Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable 4.Robust 18 Looking Back

19. See Accessibility 2.0: Next Steps For Web Accessibility, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Smith, S., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. Journal of Access Services, Vol. 6 Issue 1 & 2, 2009, pp. 265-294. Understanding “Understanding” What does “understanding” mean for a surrealist painting? The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929) Looking Back

20. Understanding “Understanding” 20 “Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings” Wikipediasociological theoryknowledgeconstructivism What does “understanding” mean for learning? “Learning is achieved when the learner is actively engaged in the creation of knowledge rather than the passive recipient of information” Anon. Looking Back

21. Accessibility For Me! 21 “Second Life is a graphically- oriented environment which requires a high-spec PC. It is not universally accessible. In a video entitled Wheeling In Second Life, Judith, who has cerebral palsy, describes the pleasure she gains from her use of Second Life and the facility it provides her to meet others. Public sector organisations that are bound too narrowly by technical or even contextual rules and legislation, might feel compelled to shy away from making use of Second Life. In doing so, they might deny users such as Judith the special benefits in terms of engagement that it offers her” From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S., Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, 2009

22. Accessibility For Me! 22 “Second Life is a graphically- oriented environment which requires a high-spec PC. It is not universally accessible. In a video entitled Wheeling In Second Life, Judith, who has cerebral palsy, describes the pleasure she gains from her use of Second Life and the facility it provides her to meet others. Public sector organisations that are bound too narrowly by technical or even contextual rules and legislation, might feel compelled to shy away from making use of Second Life. In doing so, they might deny users such as Judith the special benefits in terms of engagement that it offers her”

23. Need For A Wide Range of Stakeholders WAI model does not address: Ways of identifying and engaging with range of stakeholders Processes needed to develop sustainable accessibility 23 Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. WWW 2007 Banff, Canada. Looking Back It be useful if there were standards to address stakeholder engagement in Web development

24. What Is To Be Done? Complexity should not mean inaction. Something needs to be done! But what? 24 Doing the Right Thing? “Under the Australian Disabilities Act (1992) [43], Australian Government services must not discriminate against people with disabilities.” Implementing Legal Requirements in a Flawed Way? “The Australian Government Information Management Office states that compliance to WCAG 1.0 is mandatory for all Government departments and agencies [44].” From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S., Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, Volume 4, Issue 4, July 2009, pp. 212-226. DOI: 10.1080/17483100902903408 What Next?

25. Aversive Disablism “'Aversive disablists recognise disablism is bad but do not recognize that they themselves are prejudiced' [6]. Where aversive racists are not anti-black, but pro-white [7], aversive disablists may not be anti-disabled, but rather pro-non-disabled. This disablism, is often unintentional” Who may be aversive disablists? Legislators, who develop legislation which has unforeseen effects for Judith? Institutional policy makers and Web managers who implement such legislation? 25 Developing Countries; Developing Experiences: Approaches to Accessibility for the Real World, Kelly, B., Lewthwaite, S. and Sloan, D., W4A 2010, April 26-27, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-4503-0045-2 DOI: 10.1145/1805986.1805992 What Next?

26. Disability, Web Standards, and the Majority World “Web standards offer a powerful tool for achieving global web accessibility. However, the success of such standards may be limited while standards fail to account for disability as a socio-cultural product dependent on any given context.” 26 From Chapter 9, Disability, Web Standards, and the Majority World by Sarah Lewthwaite and Henny Swan. In Rhetorical Accessability: At the Intersection of Technical Communication and Disability Studies, ISBN: 978-0-89503-789-3, August 2013.

27. Limitations of Our Work Research work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility: Well known across research community Widely cited Awarded prize at W4A 2010 But: Little impact on legislators and policy makers Left unresolved “what should I do?” 27

28. Enter BS 8878 BS 8878: Developed in UK in parallel with our holistic accessibility work UK standardisation work aligned with ideas described in “Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes”, W4A 2007 Work led by Jonathan Hassell, Hassell Inclusion and former Head of Usability & Accessibility, BBC Future Media Costs £100 See Getting Started Guide and Hassell Inclusion 28

29. BS 8878’s 16 Stages BS 8878 describes 16 steps which cover 4 stages. See BS 8878 in 88 Seconds video 29

30. BS 8878’s 16 Steps Step 1:Define the purpose of the web product Step 2:Define the target audiences for the web product Step 3:Analyse the needs of the target audiences for the web product Step 4:Note any platform or technology preferences and restrictions of the web product's target audiences Step 5:Define the relationship the product will have with its target audiences Step 6:Define the user goals and tasks the web product needs to provide Step 7:Consider the degree of user-experience the web product will aim to provide Step 8:Consider inclusive design and user-personalized approaches to accessibility Step 9:Choose the delivery platforms to support Step 10:Choose the target browsers, operating systems and assistive technologies to support Step 11:Choose whether to create or procure the web product in-house or contract out externally Step 12:Define the web technologies to be used in the web product Step 13:Use web guidelines to direct accessible web production Step 14:Assure the web product's accessibility through production Step 15:Communicate the web product's accessibility decisions at launch Step 16: Plan to assure accessibility in all post-launch updates to the product 30 See A Challenge to Web Accessibility Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and Processes First, Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S. W4A 2012. BS 8878

31. About BS 8878 BS 8878 Web Accessibility Code of Practice is a process-oriented standard created in the UK to allow organisations to: 1.Understand why digital inclusion and accessibility makes good business sense 2.Embed inclusion responsibility strategically across key job-roles, and into key policies 3.Follow a user-centred production process which identifies the key decisions which affect inclusion and which are taken in a Web product’s lifecycle 4.Adopt an informed way of making these decisions 5.Adopt a way of documenting these decisions to provide a log for assessing accessibility risk & proving conformance with BS 8878 6.Synchronise these activities with similar processes for the inclusive design of non-digital products 31 BS 8878 "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite

32. BS 8878 and Other Standards BS 8878 adds a framework to technical accessibility guidelines like WCAG 2.0 to ensure all aspects of an organisation’s activities which impact inclusion are covered. These include: Procurement and selection of production tools and CMSs Outsourcing production to third-parties Project management of inclusive production Assessment of accessibility risk and impact on budgets Selection of the more effective testing methodologies to assure accessibility alongside usability Governance of inclusion across a programme of Web production projects 32 "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite BS 8878

33. In Brief At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their product, its specific audiences, and a clear, researched understanding of the contexts in which those audiences will use the product. In the light of this research, organisations can then make high- level decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they wish the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of making it accessible to that degree. From there organisations are advised on the relative cost- benefits of different testing methodologies for them to use across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were aiming for. 33 BS 8878 "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71

34. In Brief At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their product, its specific audiences, and a clear, researched understanding of the contexts in which those audiences will use the product. In the light of this research, organisations can then make high- level decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they wish the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of making it accessible to that degree. From there organisations are advised on the relative cost- benefits of different testing methodologies for them to use across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were aiming for. 34 BS 8878

35. What Next? “Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting accessibility successfully within a large organisational structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging focus on defining, implementing and documenting the process of creating accessible Web content, process standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible and given greater support at a global level. Complementing this, we need greater sharing of success stories as narratives of problems to be addressed, constraints within which work had to take place, what was done and the measurable evidence of impact in terms of positive experiences of disabled people - and of other users.” 35 From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite BS 8878

36. What Next? “Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting accessibility successfully within a large organisational structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging focus on defining, implementing and documenting the process of creating accessible Web content, process standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible and given greater support at a global level. Complementing this, we need greater sharing of success stories as narratives of problems to be addressed, constraints within which work had to take place, what was done and the measurable evidence of impact in terms of positive experiences of disabled people - and of other users.” 36 From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite BS 8878

37. But What Can I Do Next? You can: Take an area which poses difficulties in ensuring WCAG compliance e.g. Your institutional repository with author-deposited PDFs but no ALT text for images in MS Word master Your VLE, with the limitations provided by the vendor Your plans to digitise lectures, but no funding for captioning Your MOOC plans and the accompanying uncaptioned video resources …. Use BS 8878 16 stages to document your plans, stake-holders, user engagement, constraints, policy decisions and sustainability plans 37 What Next?

38. Conclusions To conclude: There is a need to think beyond the digital resource and the digital tools You should engage with a wide range of stakeholders in enhancing accessibility You should also consider alternative perspectives of 'accessibility' and disability It’s OK to reject 'universal accessibility' and focus on 'accessibility for these users in these circumstances' WCAG is still relevant, but shouldn't dominate BS 8878 provides a standard for further work There’s a need to share experiences in use of BS 8878, especially if it’s to develop beyond the UK 38 What Next?

39. Any Questions? Note an accompanying blog post is available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2013/11/29 Feel free to ask questions, leave comments, etc. on this post. 39

40. Book available from BSI Press in Q1, 2014 for information, email: book@hassellinclusion.com

41. This presentation, “Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!” by Brian Kelly, Cetis is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence Note the licence covers most of the text in this presentation. Quotations may have other licence conditions. Images may have other licence conditions. Where possible links are provided to the source of images so that licence conditions can be found. 41 Slides and further information available at http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/ Licence and Additional Resources