1 / 19

Challenges to OER Accessibility in the Web 2.0 Landscape

Challenges to OER Accessibility in the Web 2.0 Landscape. Jack Hennes Michigan State University . Challenges to OER Accessibility.

afia
Download Presentation

Challenges to OER Accessibility in the Web 2.0 Landscape

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenges to OER Accessibility in the Web 2.0 Landscape Jack Hennes Michigan State University

  2. Challenges to OER Accessibility • Web 2.0 platforms provide collaborative landscapes for reading and writing on web and seem to promise Tim Berners-Lee’s vision for an inclusive and accessible information space (Ellis and Kent, 2011).  • Just as Selfe and Selfe identify the nature of political border lines on the interface, the barriers to ensuring the accessibility of new media content on OERs need to be identified.

  3. Challenges to OER Accessibility • Focusing on one resource, the online composition OER Writing Commons, I suggest a few technical ways to improve OER accessibility. In turn, I hope that OER developers, editors, teachers, and students can begin a dialogue to transform the delivery of composition OERs to be truly accessible writing resources for all users.

  4. Challenges to OER Accessibility • In this presentation, I identify the challenges of OER access and accessibility through discussing: Open access and participatory publishing models Web accessibility guidelines for the Web 2.0 landscape An AChecker accessibility report of the OER Writing Commons Bridging access and accessibility to initiate a discussion of OER transformation among all stakeholders

  5. Open Access and Participatory Publishing Models • According to Jay Dolmage, “As we explore the future of open access compositon technologies and texts, we need to critique the ways in which our ideals fail to address the needs of users with a diverse range of abilities” (1).

  6. Open Access and Participatory Publishing Models • Open Access publishing presents the potential for “an inclusionary and egalitarian networked commons” (Dawson 272). • “The dream behind the Web is of a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information. The power of the web is in its universality. Access by anyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.” Tim Berners-Lee in 1997

  7. Web Accessibility Guidelines in the Web 2.0 Era • When OERs feature Web 2.0 elements – such as images, video, audio, and multimedia that combine these elements – a number of barriers to both access and accessibility are presented to students.

  8. Web Accessibility Guidelines in the Web 2.0 Era • WCAG 2.0, released in 2009, are based on the acronym POUR – perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (Ellis and Kent, 18).

  9. AChecker Report and Analysis of OER Accessibility • Technical knowledge of delivery options on Writing Commons presents many affordances to composition OERs, where the delivery of open content to support knowledge work must not be retrofitted or fixed with small add-ons to ensure accessibility.

  10. AChecker Report and Analysis of OER Accessibility • Technical knowledge of delivery options on Writing Commons presents many affordances to composition OERs, where the delivery of open content to support knowledge work must not be retrofitted or fixed with small add-ons to ensure accessibility.

  11. AChecker Report and Analysis of OER Accessibility • Based on the WCAG 2.0, 23 known problems were found, falling under the following categories: Text Alternatives: Provide text alternatives for any non-text content (Add an alt attribute to your imgelement) Navigable: Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are (document missing title element; header nesting – header following h2 is incorrect)

  12. AChecker Report and Analysis of OER Accessibility • According to the “Guidelines for Open Educational Resources (OER) in Higher Education,” a document cooperatively authored by UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning, educational resources should: Support flexible styling (e.g., enlarging the font, enhancing the colour contrast and adjusting the layout for students with vision impairments or mobile devices); Support keyboard control of functions and navigation (for students who cannot use or do not have access to a mouse or pointing device);

  13. AChecker Report and Analysis of OER Accessibility Provide audio or text descriptions of non-text information presented in videos, graphics or images (for students who have visual constraints or who have limited displays); Provide text captions of information presented in audio format (for students who have hearing constraints or lack audio interfaces); Cleanly separate text that can be read in the interface from underlying code or scripting (to enable translation); Use open formats wherever possible to make it easier for alternative access systems and devices to display and control the resource; and Adhere to international standards of interoperability so that OER can be used on a wide variety of devices and applications.

  14. Bridging OER Access and Accessibility “Outside the university, the problem of access is severe: the absence and inadequacy of computer resources and the lack of an adequate network infrastructure in homes, schools, and public places mean that large segments of the population cannot access and benefit from digital information. That problem is especially serious in the United States because, as government documents, news media, health information, public archives, and even public debate move into online spaces, people with limited access to those spaces are increasingly cut off from information and public debates and cultural knowledge vital to their health and wellbeing and necessary for their participation as citizens” (13). - Jim Porter

  15. Bridging OER Access and Accessibility • As the participatory publishing model of Writing Commons presents a rich opportunity for transforming composition materials into a global, accessible resource for writers, a movement to transform OERs into truly accessible resources builds on the participatory model presented by OERs like Writing Commons.

  16. Bridging OER Access and Accessibility • According to SushilOswal, “In the context of technology and systems, accessibility at the interface level, not as a retrofit or add-on, is true accessibility; all other options are fixes and are intrinsically inferior to the primary access available to the able-bodied because such an access sets the disabled apart in a separate category. It says to the world, it’s okay for the disabled to wait a bit longer. It says that it’s alright if they get a little less” (n.p.).

  17. Bridging OER Access and Accessibility • As developers, editors, teachers, how do we strategize an approach to composition OERs that promotes accessible practices among readers and our students? • A movement to produce and deliver accessible resources is a learning process for all involved. However, altering or retrofitting OERs is not an appropriate solution. Instead, this dialogue is the first step of accessible OER advocacy, giving way to a learning process centered on transforming OERs into accessible resources on the ever-changing landscape of the web.

  18. References • AChecker http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php • Appendix 2: Promoting more effective and inclusive education by designing OER for the diverse needs of students. Guidelines for Open Educational Resources (OER) in Higher Education. UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning, 2011. Accessed 20 May, 2014 from http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/Guidelines_OER_HE.pdf • Dawson, Ashley. “DIY Academy? Cognitive Capitalism, Humanist Scholarship and Digital Transformation.” The Social Media Reader. Michael Mandberg, Ed. New York: NYU Press, 2012. 363-390. Print. • Dolmage, Jay. “Open Access(ibility?) Pedagogies of Scholarly Publishing.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Indianapolis, IN. March 21, 2014. Panel presentation. • Ellis, Katie and Kent, Mike. Disability and New Media. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print. • Helquist, Melissa. “Open Access Textbooks: Exploiting Audio Potentialities.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Indianapolis, IN. March 21, 2014. Panel presentation.

  19. References • Kelly, B., D. Sloan, S. Brown, J. Seale, H. Petrie, P. Lauke, and S. Ball (2007). Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes. 16th International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada, 7-8 May. Retrieved 25 May, 2014 from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/398/1/w4a-2007-kelly.pdf • Moxley, Joe and Kaiser, Katelin. “On Sharing and OERs (Open Education Resources).” Academe blog. 31 January, 2013. Web. Accessed 25 May, 2014. http://academeblog.org/2013/01/31/on-sharing-and-oers-open-education-resources/ • National Disabililty Officer Coordination Program (2010). “Sourcing Alternative Formats.” Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. • Oswal, Sushil. “Multimodality in Motion.” Kairos 18.1 (Fall 2013): n.p. http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/pages/ableism/index.html • Porter, James. “Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric and Human-Computer Interaction.” Genre 27 (Fall 2008): pp. 1-28. http://comphacker.org/comp/engl335fosen/files/2012/08/porter_digitaldelivery.pdf • Watson Hyatt, G. (2008). “Social Networking: Including or Excluding People with Disabilities?” Disaboom Live Forward. Retreived 25 May, 2014.

More Related