1 / 38

A Comparison of Learning Management System Accessibility: Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle, SAKAI

A Comparison of Learning Management System Accessibility: Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle, SAKAI. CSUN 2013. Presenters. Hadi Rangin Web Design and IT Accessibility Specialist University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

manning
Download Presentation

A Comparison of Learning Management System Accessibility: Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle, SAKAI

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. A Comparison of Learning Management System Accessibility:Blackboard, Desire2Learn,Moodle, SAKAI CSUN 2013

  2. Presenters • HadiRanginWeb Design and IT Accessibility SpecialistUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Marc Thompson, Ph.D.Instructional DesignerOnline & Continuing EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Dan HahneLearning ProfessionalCITES Academic Technology ServicesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  3. Overview • Background on LMS Comparison and why we did fresh evaluation • Categories and criteria • LMS side-by-side comparisons • Closing remarks • Contacts and FAQ

  4. Vendor Collaboration • Working with vendors since 2005 • WebCT/Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Ebsco Publishing, Elsevier, Ex Libris, BB Collaborate, Qualtrics, many more • Very positive response from companies and good results • Increasing designers’/developers’ knowledge of accessible design and techniques • VPAT & Certificates • Accessible design vs. accessibility bandage

  5. Disclaimer • All statements/opinions in this report are those of the authors. • This report does not represent the view or opinion of the presenters' respective institutions. • Our testing does not reflect a full or complete accessibility evaluation. • As we tested only selected tools, it is possible we did not test for some relevant functional accessibility features or tools. • It is possible there are errors in our testing and evaluation results. • Evaluation was performed at different times in 2012, so data does not reflect the newest enhancements (e.g., BB has revised its Discussion Board since our evaluation; thus, it is not included in the version we tested).

  6. About the Evaluation and Results • Our report is an accessibility/usability evaluation. • We focus on coding practice, accessibility techniques, and overall usability. • Each of these LMS is unique and powerful. • Same tools but with different capabilities and complexity. • Results could be unfair to vendors offering more capable tools. • Results do not say which tool is better as a whole. • If you have suggestions for improving the testing protocol, please send your feedback to hadi@illinois.edu.

  7. Goals of this Project • Introduce accessibility/usability features that enhance users’ experience • Offer stakeholders independent accessibility-related information • Educate the community that accessibility is much more than alt tags for graphics and labels for form controls • Acknowledge and recognize vendors' efforts in accessible design and collaborative approaches to development.

  8. LMS Compared • Blackboard 9.1 Service Pack 6 & 8 • Desire2Learn 10 • Moodle 2.3 • SAKAI 2.8

  9. Testing & Evaluation Categories Login, Configuration, and Compatibility Testing Personalization and Customization Navigation Forms Help and Documentation Common Student-facing Modules/Tools Authoring Tools and Content Creation Features Unique to LMS that Affect Accessibility (not scored)

  10. Common Student-facing Modules/Tools • Announcements • Discussion • E-mail • Chat • Assignments, Activities, Course Content, Learning Modules • Grade Book • Quizzing/Testing Components

  11. Authoring Tools & Content Creation • File Uploading • Authoring Tool • Grade Book (Instructor Level) • Multimedia Content Handling

  12. Evaluation Rationale • Performing a task easily and reliably • Performing a task independently & effectively • Error handling & recovery • Accessing help & documentation • Adaptation of UI to users’ needs

  13. Evaluation Criteria • Functional vs. Technical Evaluation: • Kinds of questions we ask • Can users accomplish particular tasks?” • Can users post to a particular forum/thread? • Can users find out how much time is remaining for their quiz? • Kinds of questions we don’t ask • How did you code this? • Did you code the input element correctly for the subject line of the email? • Accessible technique is required, but not sufficient.

  14. Which Disabilities Did We Test For? • Visual • Mobility • Learning • Cognitive

  15. Methodology • Each criterion is tested and scored for fundamental accessibility features. • Testing for keyboard, screen reader, low-vision, learning disabilities. • Criteria have different weights depending on how they impact accessibility. • Related criteria in each category are organized into groups (subcategories). • Total score of a category is comprised of total points for the criteria in that category, including all subcategories.

  16. Comparative Data Table • Shows points received for each criterion • Shows average score for each criterion • Shows how each LMS is doing in each category • Each LMS also has its own specific results page • Data are linked to corresponding comments in specific LMS results page

  17. Point Value Legend

  18. Rationale:Login, Configuration, and Compatibility Testing • First point of contact/interaction with the LMS. • LMS depends on external software/plug-ins, browser settings, etc. • Users must be informed about the required/optional software and optimal configuration before attempting to login. • Users must be able to download/install required/optional software and change necessary settings independently.

  19. Results Summary:Login, Configuration, and Compatibility Testing

  20. Rationale:Personalization and Customization • Users have different needs and ways of viewing and interacting with applications. • Users can adapt the system to their needs instead of adapting to the application. • Personalization improves the user’s experience.

  21. Results Summary:Personalization and Customization

  22. Rationale for Navigation • Navigation is the most important element for accessibility. • Often there is no visual clue or description of the layout. • Users need to obtain necessary information to make navigation decisions. • Users must be able to navigate effectively and with certainty.

  23. Results Summary:Navigation

  24. Rationale for Forms • Real interaction starts with forms. • Users must enter data easily and with certainty. • Data format must be easy to understand. • Instruction must be clear and understandable. • Users must be notified about possible errors and be able to fix them. • Users must be notified about successful submissions.

  25. Results Summary:Forms

  26. Rationale for Help and Documentation • LMS are complex applications and require a learning curve. • Main functions of tools must be clearly explained and easily visible. • Step-by-step instructions must be provided before or during the help process. • Supported accessibility features must be documented and made available inside the LMS, as well as outside the LMS.

  27. Results Summary:Help and Documentation

  28. Rationale:Common Student-facing Modules/Tools • User needs to interact with various tools in LMS. • Most essential and common modules/tools have been selected for evaluation. • Criteria depend upon the functionality of the tools.

  29. Results Summary:Tools: Discussion

  30. Results Summary:Tools: Assignments, Activities, Course Content

  31. Results Summary:Tools: Grade Book

  32. Results Summary:Tools: Quizzing/Testing Components

  33. Rationale for Authoring Tools and Content Creation • Content is the main component in online learning. • Authoring tools play a critical role in creating accessible content. • They can guide/educate content creators to create accessible content. • They can test for accessibility before upload.

  34. Results Summary:Tools: Authoring Tools & Content Creation

  35. Closing Remarks • Administrators: demand accessibility features and consider them on par with security & privacy • Accessibility is not a "nice feature" to have; it is a "must feature” • Need for continued collaboration • LMS are more accessible than ever • Build a culture that has accessibility as part of basic design considerations

  36. How Can You Get Involved? • How can we become part of the solution? • Collaboration between product developers, end-users, and accessibility specialists. • Collaboration culture: commercial vs. open-source community. • All these products are significantly more accessible than a few years ago. • Blackboard Accessibility Interest Grouphttp://collaborate.athenpro.org/group/bb/ • Desire2Learn Accessibility Interest Grouphttp://collaborate.athenpro.org/group/d2l/ • Moodle Docs Accessibility Pagehttp://docs.moodle.org/dev/AccessibilityMoodle Accessibility Trackerhttps://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL/component/10083  • SAKAI Accessibility Working Group Pagehttps://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/2ACC/Accessibility+Working+Group

  37. Credits & Acknowledgments • Ken Petri, Ohio State University • Joe Humbert, Indiana University • Joanna Hunt (BB) • Sandra Earl & Janna Cameron (D2L) • Peter Jeffels, • Cheryl Todd, • Gaby Venatta, University of Illinois • Brian Richwine, Indiana University

  38. Questions? • Contacts • Hadi Rangin, hadi@illinois.edu • Ken Petri, petri.1@osu.edu • Marc Thompson, thompso1@illinois.edu • Dan Hahn hahn23@illinois.edu • Joe Humbert johumber@iupui.edu

More Related