1. 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. 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: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

2. 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

3. 3 About You What is your interest in Web accessibility? What do you hope to gain from this session?

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 6 Limitations of the WAI Approach Content guidelines outdated Content 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 WCAG ATAG UAAG 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

7. 7 Universal Accessibility? NormalCancer Man against snow, Austrian Tirol 1974, reproduced with permission of the photographer: Professor Paul Hill The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929) The Duck-Rabbit CRAFT BREWERY

8. 8 Holistic Approach 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

9. 9 Articulating the Approach The "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

10. 10 Tangram Model 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 …

11. 11 Stakeholder Model Common 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

12. 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’

13. 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’

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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?

17. 17 Questions Questions and general discussion