1. UKOLN is supported by: One World, One Web... But Great Diversity Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath UK Email: B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk About This Paper: This paper builds on previous work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility. The need for a user-centred, rather than resource-centred, approach is described. Application of this approach in various contexts, including Web 2.0, is described. About This Paper: This paper builds on previous work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility. The need for a user-centred, rather than resource-centred, approach is described. Application of this approach in various contexts, including Web 2.0, is described. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2008/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Tag ‘ w4a-2008 ' Co-Authors: Liddy Nevile, EA Draffan and Sotiris Fanou by-nc-sa

2. 2 Previous Work (1) Limitations of WAI’s approaches to accessibility in e-learning context were first described in 2004. Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Kelly, B., Phipps, L and Swift, E. Vol. 30, Issue 3. Paper argued need to focus on the accessibility of the learner’s needs, rather than the e-learning resources.

3. 3 Previous Work (2) 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

4. 4 Previous Work (3) 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

5. 5 Previous Work (4) 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 ?

6. 6 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

7. 7 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

8. 8 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 the paper

9. 9 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

10. 10 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.

11. 11 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

12. 12 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 higher 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, …

13. 13 Accessibility Metadata Initial work focussed on Models to embrace diversity Policies to support such models Complementary work in progress on: Metadata to support computer-mediated delivery of personalised resources Standardisation activities (AccessForAll) Demonstrator projects (e.g. TILE)

14. 14 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

15. 15 Commissioning Web Sites Evidence: Popularity of WCAG-based logos (WCAG A/AA/AA Compliant, Bobby, …) We know this is a problem What should we do? Discourage use of logos? Explore alternative approaches? Alternative approaches: Focus on quality workflow processes, rather than the resources (cf ISO 9001 standard) BSI PAS 78 provides example of this approach

16. 16 Limitations Developers prefer hard objective rules Difficulties in identifying ‘reasonable measures Institutional policies based on old approaches Ego invested in existing approaches (“I’ll never use any trendy JavaScript on my site”) Addressing the challenges: Drawing parallels with other areas WCAG 1.0 as ‘training wheels’ – once principles mastered, more flexibility approaches can be taken Sharing experiences, best practices (and problems) with peers

17. 17 Conclusions To conclude: Previous work on identifying limitations of ‘Web accessibility 1.0’ is now becoming accepted Deployment of WCAG 2.0 provides an opportunity to promote more flexible approaches We hope paper has provided examples of such flexibility