Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic And User-Centred Approach To Web Accessibility

1. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/mw-2007/professional-forum/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/mw-2007/professional-forum/ Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic And User-Centred Approach To Web Accessibility Stephen Brown De Montfort University Leicester Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email S.Brown@dmu.ac.uk Email B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Resources bookmarked using ‘mw-accessibility-2007' tag UKOLN is supported by: This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

2. Aims Of Forum • The facilitators will encourage feedback on: • The experiences the museum’s community has had in seeking to provide accessible Web sites • The strengths and weaknesses of the WAI guidelines • The relationships between the accessibility, usability and interoperability of Web sites • The relevance of guidelines in a Web 2.0 environment • At the end of the professional forum you should have: • Learnt about some of the limitations of the WAI approach to Web accessibility • Heard about the experiences of other participants • Heard about and discussed the holistic approach to Web accessibility • Taken part in discussions on a roadmap for future work in this area http://edit.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/kelly-brown/kelly-brown.html

3. Contents • Web accessibility & Museum Web Sites: • How do we try to address the issues? • How well are we doing? What difficulties do we experience? • What do we mean by Web accessibility? • Compliance with (WAI) guidelines? • Something else? • Contextualising Web accessibility: • Based on the purpose of the service • Based on your organisation context • Based on wider contexts (e.g. cultural & legal) • What Next? • A roadmap for further work • Your feedback

4. E Web Accessibility & Museums • How do you try to address the issue of Web accessibility within your museum? • How well are you doing? What difficulties do you experience? How do you know?

5. Background: W3C WAI & WCAG • W3C (World Wide Web Consortium): • Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards • WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative): • W3C group responsible for developing guidelines which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible • WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines): • One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG provides advice of accessibility on Web content (e.g. HTML pages) • Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools (ATAG) Review: WAI Approach

6. WAI Strengths • WAI work: • Provides valuable guidelines for helping to make Web sites more accessible • Widely recognised • Widely adopted • Support by various tools: • WebXact (Bobby) • Cynthia Says • … Review: WAI Approach

7. The WAI Model • The WAI model for Web accessibility is based on three components: • Content • Authoring Tools • Browsers • Assumption: do three right  universal accessibility • But: • We have no control over browsers & authoring tools • The browsers and authoring tools aren't great • The content guidelines are flawed • What if users are happy with their existing browser? Review: WAI Approach

8. Which reflects your views most closely? Interpretation of WAI WCAG • How do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images; HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …): • Mandatory, with following characteristics: • Clearly defined rules Objective • Checking mostly objective • Penalties for non-compliance • Similar to checking that HTML complies with the standard • Advisory, with following characteristics: • Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in context • It's about providing useful, usable resources • It's contextual • Checking mostly subjective • It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed Review: WAI Approach BK

9. Limitations of the WAI Model Limitations • WAI approach has shortcomings: • WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents • …and conformant users! • WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C formats; must use latest versions; …") • Has a Web-only view of the world: • What about other IT solutions? • What about blended (real world) solutions? • Has a belief in a single universal solution: • But isn't accessibility a very complex issue • Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to be developed at the first attempt?

10. E What do we mean by Web accessibility? • Can we provide accessible Web services without a clear understanding of what we mean by this? • Small group exercise: • What do we mean by Web accessibility? • Where does usability fit in? Where does interoperability fit in?

11. Usability & Interoperability • What about: • Usability • Interoperability http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp • Example: • Long, application-specific URLs can cause accessibility/usability and interoperability problems • Addition Problems: • We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users) • We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly) • We don’t need to address usability The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

12. E Context for Web Accessibility • Are there universal aspects to Web accessibility or does Web accessibility determined by context of use?

13. Diversity – Content Context • WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites: • Here’s the train timetable – I want the information and I want it now • This is reasonable and desirable • But is this approach always relevant to learning and cultural contexts: • Here’s something – you must interpret it (and being wrong can be part of the learning process)

14. Universal Accessibility?

15. See Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility by Kelly, Phipps & Swift Holistic Approach Our Work • Q How do you make highly interactive e-learning services universally accessibility (e.g. 3D model of molecules)? • A If this would be unreasonable, make the learning outcomes (rather than e-learning resources) accessible. Can we apply this approach to cultural resources, with an emphasis on providing a diversity of cultural experiences?

16. Articulating the Approach Our Work • The "Tangram Metaphor" 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

17. Tangram Model & Testability Our Work • "WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing ) • Issues: • What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")? • What about 'baselines' – context only known locally • What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'? • Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78 • Tangram model can be used within WCAG • Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable) • Supports baselines Testable Baseline 1

18. An Emerging Roadmap • Accessibility Summit II held in Nov 2006 which agreed: • Need for a manifesto: • Building on WAI’s foundations • Developing a user-centric approach • Developing a contextual model • Developing an evidence-based approach • A roadmap for future work: • Engagement with disability communities • Engagement with WAI • Identifying areas of research • Gathering case studies of best practices • …

19. Building On This Work • Does the approach being developed in the UK seem applicable in your context? • What else may be needed to enhance this approach?

20. What Next? • What should the next steps be in development of approaches for Web accessibility in a museum context?