1. UKOLN is supported by: Holistic Approaches To Web Accessibility Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK 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 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. 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. 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. 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 Introduction

3. 3 A Fairy Tale for the C21 st 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!

4. 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 WAI Approach

5. 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? WAI Approach

6. 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 Implications These low conformance levels can indicate: Organisations don't care Guidelines are difficult to implement Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, … Implications These low conformance levels can indicate: Organisations don't care Guidelines are difficult to implement Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, … WAI Approach

7. 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 formats 11.1 … 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 ( ) can be rendered by browsers – this is an interoperability issue WAI Approach

8. 8 Proprietary Formats WCAG P2 requires use of W3C formats Thoughts: 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 WAI Approach

9. 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 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 WAI Approach

10. 10 Usability Issues (2) What is the relationship between usability & accessibility? Usability Accessibility Usability Accessibility Usability Accessibility WAI Approach

11. 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. WAI Approach

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

13. 13 Holistic Approach 1Developing 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 & Swift 1 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 Alternative Approach

14. 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. 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. 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. 17 Universal Accessibility? NormalCancer The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929) The Duck-Rabbit CRAFT BREWERY Holistic Scenario

18. 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’ barrier An Alternative Approach

19. 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 Alternative Approach

20. 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 Alternative Approach

21. 21 WCAG In Context WCAG 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? WAI’s Scenario

22. 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 inaccessible But: 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 Alternative Approach

23. 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.

24. 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 Alternative Approach

25. 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, … An Alternative Approach

26. 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 Alternative Approach

27. 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? An Alternative Approach

28. 28

29. 29 The Web is Agreement

30. 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 Perfection The Holistic Hamlet WAI

31. 31 Kevin Kelly

32. 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. 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 Alternative Approach

34. 34 Getting There Web 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 Alternative Approach

35. 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 Alternative Approach

36. 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

37. 37 Who’s Using These Approaches? (1b) I-Map project also used a blended approach, through provision of access to raised images

38. 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. 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 Alternative Approach

40. 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. 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 significantly Accessibility 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. 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 deployed This 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!

43. 43 Questions Questions are welcome