Beyond WAI: Thoughts On Web Accessibility

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk

Beyond WAI:Thoughts On Web Accessibility

Brian KellyUKOLNUniversity of BathBath, BA2 7AY

[email protected]://www.ukoln.ac.uk/

UKOLN is supported by:


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Contents• Background

• Shared Assumptions• My activities

• The Challenges• WAI Limitations• The Broader Perspective

• Thoughts On Solutions • A Model• Quality Assurance• Strategic Questions

• Other Issues:• Strategic challenges• WAI WCAG 2.0

NoteThe views given are based from a particular perspective and from an understanding of a particular sector.The views are meant to help start a debate.

NoteThe views given are based from a particular perspective and from an understanding of a particular sector.The views are meant to help start a debate.


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Common Assumptions (1)

Things we should have in common:• A desire to see widely-accessible and

interoperable services• Use of open standards to provide platform

and application-independent services• A recognition of the challenges faced

within the sector in achieving these aims (funding, time scales, expertise, user requirements, …)

• A desire to provide advice on how to achieve the aims whilst acknowledging the challenges

Bac

kgro

un

d


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Common Assumptions (2)

We also recognise that:• The W3C is the authoritative body which

is driving the development of Web standards

• W3C WAI has driven the agenda for Web accessibility

• W3C WAI has been successful in raising awareness globally that:

• Digital resources can be made accessible • Digital resources should be made accessible

Bac

kgro

un

d


www.ukoln.ac.uk

My Activities In The Area

My activities include:• Attended the public launch of W3C WAI at the

International WWW conference• Representing JISC on the W3C• Organising an accessibility panel session at

WWW 2003, Budapest (with Judy Brewer & Wendy Chisholm, W3C, myself and Jenny Craven, CERLIM, MMU)

• Joint participation with TechDis in workshops for FE sector

• Joint paper with Lawrie Phipps, following recognition of shared views on approaches for implementing best practices

Bac

kgro

un

d


www.ukoln.ac.uk

UK HE Web Sites (1)

In Sept 2002:• Article based on survey of 164 UK HEI home

page published in Ariadne e-journal• Survey used Bobby and reported on errors

capable of being detected automatically• Four sites seemed to comply with WAI AA – but

only 3 did comply• 70 complied with WAI A• <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/web-watch/>

Ch

alle

ng

es

Community is aware of WAI, SENDA, … and seeks to implement best practices. Subsequent discussion led to concerns over whether WAI AA guidelines were achievable / desirable


www.ukoln.ac.uk

UK HE Web Sites (2)

Following survey publication one Web manager said: • "I too have been struggling with just how

rigorously the WAI guidelines should be implemented … I certainly aspire to comply as full as I can with the WAI guidelines but …"

• Some guidelines are too theoretical • I will have a pragmatic approach: • Will use tables for positioning • Will not associate form controls for search boxes • Will not necessarily nest headers correctly • …

ConcernsThese are seen as WAI requirements. Are they?

Ch

alle

ng

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Accessibility & E-Learning

E-learning accessibility provide additional challenges:• It is intended to make information resources easy

to access; in learning students may be expected to engage in thinking

Specific problems encountered include:• Providing images and asking students what they

have in common (ALT text gives the game away)• Environments with well-liked drag and drop

interfaces (how to make this accessible without a mouse)

• 3D visualisation, …

Ch

alle

ng

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

WAI Guidelines

Some thoughts on the WAI WCAG guidelines:• The A / AA / AAA guidelines:

• AAA is for Oxbridge / A for the FE sector• A addresses most areas of disability -> AAA

unusual disabilities• A addresses aspects which can be dealt with

using today’s mainstream technologies; AAA with future XML browsers

• …• WAI guidelines address accessibility issues and

promote W3C standards• WAI guidelines ignore wider IT issues (out-of-

scope for them)

Ch

alle

ng

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Accessibility Beyond The Web

W3C WAI:• Raised awareness of accessibility issues• Ideas taken onboard by others:

• OS Vendors (accessibility aids in Windows XP)• Application vendors such as Adobe PDF) and

Macromedia (Flash)

The response from the market place means it is not longer true to say (for example) that fixed font sizes can’t be resized (Windows XP now allows this, as does Opera)

Web accessibility could be regarded as a subset of IT accessibility

Ch

alle

ng

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

WAI

W3C WAI are a very successful body

But are they too blinkered?• They promote W3C standards … but should this

be in the remit of an accessibility body• Accessibility of proprietary formats, OSs, etc. is

outside their remit• Unsuccessful engagement in addressing such

issues at WWW 2003 - see <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/www2003/>

• W3C privacy work provided technical framework and delegated implementation, policies to community. Why isn’t this approach being used by WAI?

Ch

alle

ng

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Background To QA Focus

QA Focus:• JISC-funded project to help ensure JISC’s digital

library programmes are functional, inter-operable and widely accessible

• Approach based on development of a quality assurance methodology

• Approach is developmental and based on:• Documented policies• Systematic processes for ensuring compliance

• Have developed matrix for selection of standards• Peer-reviewed conference papers published• See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/>

So

luti

on

s


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Standards Selection Matrix

QA Focus has developed a selection for selection of standards:

• Open standards are good, but some can be immature, expensive too use, fail to be deployed

• Proprietary formats are deprecated but some can be well-established (PowerPoint), provide low-costs solutions, become more open (Flash/SWF), be perceived as open (Java), …

QA Focus selection matrix:• Seeks to addresses these (and related) issues in

a systematic way• Can be deployed by (a) third party checking (cf.

NOF-digi) (b) peer review or (c) self-assessment

So

luti

on

s

See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/briefings/briefing-31/>See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/briefings/briefing-31/>


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Quality Assurance

QA Focus has developed a QA methodology:• Documented policies, including policy,

architecture and exceptions:

• Systematic procedures for ensuring policies are implemented (and underlying causes addressed)

So

luti

on

s

Web Standards: PoliciesPolicies: Compliant XHTML 1 and CSS 2Architecture: Save from MS Word / Zope CMSExceptions: HTML files derived from MS Office files

Web Standards: ProceduresCompliance checking: ,validate and ,cssvalidate used after page created. Monthly batch validation Audit trail: Batch audit trail & notes published


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Accessibility Policies

What type of accessibility policies could be applied:

• The Web site will comply with WAI AABut scope, feasibility, compliance checking, …

• The institution has a policy on accessibility. We seek to ensure … On the Web site we will seek to comply with appropriate WAI guidelines, accessibilities guidelines and …Relates to wider accessibility policies. Recognises wider Web issues. But danger of being too woolly, unless advice on implementation and compliance checking measures provided

So

luti

on

s


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Accessibility Procedures

If a QA methodology is adopted we need to define compliance checking procedures:

• Use Bobby: no!• Use a range of automated tools: still over-

emphasises problems capable of automated detection

Better approaches should probably address usability and accessibility:

• Usability and accessibility testing regime when new services deployed

• Simple batch automated accessibility / standards compliance checking to spot workflow errors

• Tools for user feedback and procedures for responding to feedback

So

luti

on

s


www.ukoln.ac.uk

A Richer Implementation Framework

A proposed modelNB JISC's forthcoming ITT and synergies with other sectors

A proposed modelNB JISC's forthcoming ITT and synergies with other sectors

Objective standards /

best practices

W3CIETF

HEI / FEI Implementation

Individual Implementation

Mainstream

Research

JISC Implementation

Advice


www.ukoln.ac.uk

Accessibility Strategies

Some thoughts on e-learning accessibility strategies:• Can we not seek an accessible learning

environment, even if the e-learning environment may be in-accessible?

• Is just-in-time accessibility an option rather than just-in-case accessibility, especially in difficult areas such as 3D visualisation, etc.

• Is accessible Flash, PDF ... an option (RNIB’s / BECTa’s view?) or does the open standards card trump this? Should we (JISC) mandate this view or seek to persuade others but leave it to them to decide?

• Isn’t the term “e-learning accessibility” misleading – shouldn’t be refer to “e-learning usability (and accessibility)

Issu

es


www.ukoln.ac.uk

WAI WCAG 2.0

The updated WAI WCAG guidelines 2.0 are now available:

• Should JISC give an official response when these are voted on?

• What should are views be?

Issu

es

Questions, comments, rebuttals welcome

Questions, comments, rebuttals welcome

Documents

Beyond WAI: Thoughts On Web Accessibility