From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)

UKOLN is supported by:

From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)

Brian KellyUKOLNUniversity of BathBath, UK

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ozewai-2009/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ozewai-2009/

This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

Acceptable Use PolicyRecording/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 PolicyRecording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.

Tag for del.icio.us ‘ozewai-2009'Tag for del.icio.us ‘ozewai-2009'

Email:[email protected]

Twitter:http://twitter.com/briankelly/

Blog:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

2

A Fairy Tale for the C21st Benevolent emperor

• Wants to do good for all his subjects

• Told of a secret formulae which allowed all of his edicts to be read by everyone in his domain

• The justice minister was told to implement the magic formulae – he did (even if he didn’t understand it)

• The head of the police force was told to ensure everyone used it

• The subjects agreed that it was good (even through they too, didn’t understand it)

One little boy pointed out the truth. The magic doesn’t work. Today you will hear what the boy had to say!

One little boy pointed out the truth. The magic doesn’t work. Today you will hear what the boy had to say!

3

About Me

Brian Kelly:• UK Web Focus: a national advisory post• Long-standing Web evangelist (since Jan 1993)• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath, with remit to

advise HE/FE and cultural heritage sectors• Interests include Web 2.0, standards, accessibility

and deployment strategies• Awarded the IWR Information Professional of the

Year in December 2007• Winner of Best Research Paper on

“Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” at ALT-C 2005

• Papers presented at International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008

Intr

od

uct

ion

4

About My Past – 1997-8

Attended WAI launch in April 1997 & follow-up meeting in UK.

Member of DISinHE Steering group

5


Member of DISinHE Steering group – promoting WAI and WCAG 1.0

6


Hmm – nothing much new to say, it seems.But then I start to gather evidence (what does Bobby report?) and used findings to chastise organisations

7


Then questioning the assumptions: “Web accessibility too difficult?” and “Is universal Web accessibility possible?” followed by peer-reviewed papers

8


Developing holistic & user-focussed approaches: “Holistic Framework for Web Accessibility” “Contextual Web Accessibility” – and winning award for best research paper

9


Extending holistic & user-focussed approaches to new domains (cultural resources and Web 2.0 environment) and seeking to embed in mainstream development. And now speaking in Australia

10

The WAI Model

WAI has been tremendously successful in raising awareness of Web accessibility and providing guidelines to achieve this.

WAI guidelines are based on:

• WCAG (Web Content …)• ATAG (Authoring Tools ..)• UAAG (User Agents …)

The model is simple to grasp. But is this model appropriate for the future? Does the model:

• Reflect the diversity of users & user environments• Reflect the diversity of Web usage• Reflect real-world technical environment and developments• Reflect real-world political and cultural environments

The Magic Formulae

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

11

Limitations Of The ModelThis model:

• Requires all three components to be implemented in order for the WAI vision to be achieved

• Is of limited use to end users who have no control over browser or authoring tools developments

• Is confusing – as many think WCAG is WAIHow does this model address:

• Delays in full conformance? (We're still waiting for "until user agents …" clause to be resolved)

• Real-world reluctance to deploy new software (issues of inertia, testing, costs, …)

• Real world complexitiesIs there a plan B in case this model fails to ever take off?Is it desirable to base legal requirements on an unproven theoretical framework?

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

12

WCAG Conformance

Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines. Several surveys carried out using automated tools (which gives upper limit on accessibility)

• DRC report, 2004: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based on 1,000 UK Web sites

• UK Museums, Libraries and Archives report, 2004: 42% A, 3% AA conformance based on 124 Web sites

• UK Universities surveys (UKOLN, 2002, 2004): 43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites

Note that these figures aren’t of accessible Web site, only conformance with automated tests

ImplicationsThese low conformance levels can indicate:

• Organisations don't care• Guidelines are difficult to implement• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …

ImplicationsThese low conformance levels can indicate:

• Organisations don't care• Guidelines are difficult to implement• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

13

WCAG 1.0 DifficultiesCertain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns:11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ...

• Promotes own technologies• Appears to ignore major improvements in

accessibility of non-W3C formats11.1 … and use the latest versions when supported

• Goes against project management guidelines• Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI

AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A! 3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars

• Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by browsers – this is an interoperability issue

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

14

Proprietary FormatsWCAG 1.0 P2 requires use of W3C formatsThoughts:

• Reflects the idealism of the Web community in late 1990s

• The conveyor belt of great W3C formats has slowed down (anyone use SMIL, SVG, …)

• Software vendors are responding to WAI’s initiatives (formats, OS developments, …)

• Developments in non-Web areas (mobile phones, …) & integration with real-world (e.g. blended learning, …)

• Users care about the outcomes, not the way in which the outcomes are provided

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

15

DRC survey also carried out usability testing:• Exemplar accessible Web sites did not comply with

WCAG guidelines (WCAG A)• WCAG compliant sites (according to tools) were not

accessible or usable

DDA requires users to be able to access & use services

DDA – UK's Disability Discrimination ActDDA – UK's Disability Discrimination Act

Usability Issues (1)

"WCAG provides the highway code for accessibility on the information superhighway"

"Fine – but what if the accelerator and brake pedals differ on every car. I'll still crash!"

The subjectivity of usability guidelines seems to be recognised

"I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say"

Jakob Neilson

"I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say"

Jakob Neilson

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

16

Usability Issues (2)

What’s the relationship between usability & accessibility?

Usability

Usability Accessibility

Accessibility

Accessibility

Usability

Usability

Accessibility

Usability Accessibility

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

Whose definition counts: WAI’s, information providers’, policy makers’, legislators’, …?

17

Confusion

SiteMorse’s automated accessibility survey of UK disability organisations’ Web sites generated heated debate

• SiteMorse: Low WCAG conformance found:• Response: doesn’t matter, manual testing gives

OK results

What do such comments say about disability organisations’ views of WCAG ?

Note that the RNIB actively promote WCAG guidelines – and also promote use of accessible Flash, without flagging any inconsistencies.

Organisations may publicly support WCAG whilst rejecting (parts of) it.

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

18

Nitpicking?

“This is just nit-picking! WCAG is valuable – don’t knock it!”

WCAG is valuable, but we need to:• Build a robust framework for the future• Ensure clarity and avoid ambiguities to avoid

different interpretations• Reflect on experiences gained since 1999• Avoid dangers of inappropriate case law being set

Nightmare ScenarioCase taken to court in UK.Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies.Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished.

Nightmare ScenarioCase taken to court in UK.Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies.Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished.

WA

I A

pp

roac

h

19

Holistic Approach

1 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3

This approach reflects an emphasis on blended learning (rather than just e-learning)

Kelly, Phipps & Swift1 have argued for a holistic framework for e-learning accessibility

This framework:• Focusses on the needs

of the learner• Requires accessible

learning outcomes, not necessarily e-learning resources

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

20

Previous Work (1)

Following on from first paper, a framework for applying WCAG in the real world (of flawed browsers, limited resources, etc) was described at W4A 2005.

Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. W4A 2005

21

Previous Work (2)

The need to address the context of use and the potential of AccessForAll metadata described at W4A 2006.

Tangram metaphor introduced to visualise a diversity of approaches.

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines. Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F & Phipps, L. W4A 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland May 2006

22

Previous Work (3)Application of our work in a wider context (e.g. cultural resources) described at W4A 2007.Paper introduced the stakeholder model and coined the term ‘Accessibility 2.0’ to describe this approach

Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes. Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. W4A 2007

What do you see? Is the answer to be found in the resource or in the reader’s interpretation ?

23

Universal Accessibility?

Normal Cancer

The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)

The Duck-RabbitCRAFT BREWERY

24

Where Are We Today?

Our work:• Acknowledges limitations in WAI’s model and

guidelines • Complements WAI’s developments to WCAG 2.0• Provides a realistic framework for development

activities• Seeks to avoid stifling of innovation by the

‘accessibility fundamentalist’ barrier

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

25

WAI Limitations

Limitations of WAI guidelines have been acknowledged:

“However, we recognize that standards are slow, and technology evolves quickly in the commercial marketplace. Innovation brings new customers and solidifies relationships with existing customers; Web 2.0 innovations also bring new types of professionals to the field, ones who care about the new dynamic medium. As technologies prove themselves, standardizing brings in the universality of the benefit, but necessarily follows this innovation. Therefore, this paper acknowledges and respects Web 2.0, discussing the issues and real world solutions.”

Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies: Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Cooper, M. W4A 2007

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

26

What’s Missing

Further work is needed:• In understanding how WCAG guidelines can be

used in a Web 2.0 context• In developing approaches for migrating from

WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0• In developing a more flexible and user-centred

approach to Web accessibility • In addressing more challenging areas of

accessibility, such as learning disabilities

These areas are addressed in W4A 2008 paper

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

27

WCAG In ContextWCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be:

• Perceivable • Operable• Understandable • Robust

But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do:

• “Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious”:Not universally understandable, now universally accessible, culturally-specific … but witty

Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable?

Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable?

And the relevance of ATAG to authors is questionable:

• Flash, PDF, MS Word, …Are these formats essential to your corporate infrastructure and workflow? What does a ATAG-conformant PDF authoring tool mean?

28

Accessibility and Web 2.0Reactions to Web 2.0 from “accessibility fundamentalists” (‘the truth is to be found in WCAG 1.0’) and Web 2.0 sceptics:

• It uses AJAX, and we know that a bad thing• You shouldn’t use Facebook, MySpace, … as it

breaks WCAG guidelines• Second Life is a no-no – it’s inherently

inaccessibleBut:

• AJAX can provide accessibility benefits• People with disabilities are using social networks –

should we stop them if they find this useful?• Judith finds Second Life a liberating experience

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

Accessibility 2.0

29

Second Life

A video clip shows Judith, a user with cerebral palsy, using Second Life with a headwand.

“Do you think that this will be a really useful tool for people who are unable to get around, who have problems of mobility in real life?” “Yes, because you can have friends without having to go out and physically find them”.

The danger is that organisations will ban SL as they feel if fails to comply with accessibility guidelines.

The danger is that organisations will ban SL as they feel if fails to comply with accessibility guidelines.

Accessibility 2.0

30

Social Networks (1)Social networks (e.g. Facebook):

• Are being used by people with disabilities• Evaluation of PWDs’ experiences (rather than

evaluation of the resource) is beginning• CAPCHA seems to be a barrier:

RNIB admit that solutions are not easy Removal of CAPCHA would provide a worse

environment for PWDs (more spam) Blended solutions may have a role (“ring this

number”)Need for:

• More evidence gathering• More advocacy & pressure

But to facilitate access to SNs not to undermine them

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

Accessibility 2.0

31

Social Networks (2)Should we regard Facebook (for example):

• As a stand-alone service?• As one of a range of access points and allow

users to chose their preferred environment? Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Personal Research Environments (PREs)

• Of increasing interest in education A focus on:

• Supporting personal choice• Providing data which can be surfaced in different

environment (via RSS and other technologies) • New media literacy skills

Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …

Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

Accessibility 2.0

32

Learning Disabilities

“WCAG 2.0 [does] not address all of the needs of people with disabilities, particularly cognitive, language, and learning disabilities”

How to address learning disability issues?• Research work at UWE• System aimed at health trainers who have learning

disabilities• Group will be trained to support health promotion

in learning disabilities community

Approaches:• Engagement with the users at initial design phase• Pragmatic approach based on ‘what works’• Experiences will be shared at later date

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

Accessibility 2.0

33

Accessibility 2.0Need 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 • 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’

Accessibility 2.0

But how will this work in an environment of global uses of Web 2.0?

But how will this work in an environment of global uses of Web 2.0?

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

34

35The Web is Agreement

36

Where Are We In This View?

Web

WCAG

Web

IT

WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility• Motherhood and apple pie? • Demonstrably flawed after 10 years

e.g. Lilley: “99.99999% of the Web was invalid HTML. W3C pretended that didn’t exist.”

• So 99.9999% of Web isn’t WCAG AA conformant!

WCAG+other guidelines+user focus+blended accessibility = widening participation

• Not yet proven wrong, but ignores scale of Web

The Pixel of PerfectionThe Pixel of Perfection The Holistic HamletThe Holistic Hamlet

WAI

37

Kevin Kelly

38

Accessibility 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

Accessibility 1.0: • Handcrafted resources made accessible

Accessibility 2.0:• Institutional approaches to accessibility

Accessibility 3.0

Accessibility 3.0:• Global approaches to accessibility

Work on accessibility metadata is underway, but is still at an early stage.

39

Web Accessibility 3.0We’re already seeing computer software giving hints on resources which may be of interest to us

Note how improvements can be made:

• By system gathering more data

• By user providing preferences and other hints clues

• By others providing data

• By author metadata

Accessibility 3.0

Challenge: Can such developments be applied to provide benefits to people with disabilities?

Challenge: Can such developments be applied to provide benefits to people with disabilities?

“Web Accessibility 3.0” coined in “Web Accessibility 3.0: Learning From The Past, Planning For The Future”, Neville, L. & Kelly, B. ADDW08, Sep 2008

“Web Accessibility 3.0” coined in “Web Accessibility 3.0: Learning From The Past, Planning For The Future”, Neville, L. & Kelly, B. ADDW08, Sep 2008

40

Semantic Web Principles

Principles which may be required:• Persistent URIs for resources• Metadata in RDF• Accessibility metadata schema published on Web• Accessibility terms published in public ontologies

Applications:• To provide user tagging and links to equivalent

resources• To support personalisation• Openness of software, content and metadata• Vendors support

Accessibility 3.0

41

Learning From The Past

We’re starting to explore an Accessibility 3.0 vision

But what lessons must we learn from Accessibility 1.0:• We don’t want a theoretical solution• The dangers of standardising too soon• The dangers of legislating too soon• The dangers of ignoring diversity• The need to get market acceptance for tools• The difficulties of getting market acceptance• Standards-based solutions may not deliver • …

Accessibility 3.0

Note that the Accessibility 3.0 vision is based on W3C Semantic Web principles. A challenge for W3C and user community is reconciling WAI and SW visions and how they are interpreted.

Note that the Accessibility 3.0 vision is based on W3C Semantic Web principles. A challenge for W3C and user community is reconciling WAI and SW visions and how they are interpreted.

42

A Fresh Look At AccessibilityWe acknowledge that:

• Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible• Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic,

national and discipline boundaries• An individual does not need a universally

accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource which is accessible to them

• Different communities may have different needs• Same person may have different needs at

different times and places• Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource• We find the term ‘inclusive’ more useful than

‘accessible to people with disabilities’

An

Alt

ern

ativ

e A

pp

roac

h

CritiqueWeb accessibility 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, … implies:

• Technical solutions• Universality

What we need:• A flexible framework• Acknowledgement of need to address:

Diversity of (& tensions between) different user group and user needs

Ever increasing diversity of uses of the Web Resource implications Context of use …

43

Adaptability (1.0)Term which acknowledges such diversity:

• Solutions• Policies• Stakeholders and their (yesterday • Change: policies, learning, evidence, …• …

44

Question: Shouldn’t we be talking about Web Adaptability rather than Web Adaptability 1.0?

Question: Shouldn’t we be talking about Web Adaptability rather than Web Adaptability 1.0?

Need for adaptability: Policy makers, trainers, authors: Yesterday JavaScript and proprietary formats were banned, Today they’re permitted.Legislators: Yesterday all Government Web site had to comply with WCAG 1.0. Today the same is true, as it takes years to change legislation.

Need for adaptability: Policy makers, trainers, authors: Yesterday JavaScript and proprietary formats were banned, Today they’re permitted.Legislators: Yesterday all Government Web site had to comply with WCAG 1.0. Today the same is true, as it takes years to change legislation.

Web

Ad

apta

bil

ity

Putting The User FirstThe way we were

45

Th

e ru

les

Th

e so

luti

on

Th

e u

ser Example

“UK Government requires all government Web sites to comply with WCAG AA”

The context

Th

e u

ser

Th

e so

luti

on

Th

e g

uid

elin

es

Where we should be

Example• Involve user in design

process• Recognise the context• Then seek to apply

guidelines

Web

Ad

apta

bil

ity

Alternative to a one-size-fit-all approach

Web Adaptability Framework

The framework embraces:• The intended use of the service• The intended audience• The available resources• Technical innovations• Organisational policies• Definitions of accessibility• …

46

To avoid adaptability meaning doing whatever you fancy (e.g. IE-only sites) the adaptation needs to be implemented with context of a legal framework, reasonable measures, …

To avoid adaptability meaning doing whatever you fancy (e.g. IE-only sites) the adaptation needs to be implemented with context of a legal framework, reasonable measures, …

47

Who’s Using These Approaches? (1)

Public library example:• Presentation at national Public Library event• “And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve

developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it”• “What about accessibility?”• “Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new

legislation becomes into force”Blended approach:

• “What’s the purpose of the game?”• “To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents

get books”• “How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as

an alternative? This is an alternative approach to problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities”

Web

Ad

apta

bil

ity

48

Who’s Using These Approaches? (2a)

Tate’s i-Map project: early example of an award-winning approach to providing access to paintings for visual impaired users

• It used Flash ..!

• … to allow users to ‘participate’ in the creation of the painting

Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on “Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell

Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on “Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility” paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell

49

Who’s Using These Approaches? (2b)

I-Map project also used a blended approach, through provision of access to raised images

50


Wolverhampton Art Gallery are using a user-focused development approach to providing access to information about Bantcock House• Yes, it uses YouTube• Deaf users involved

in design processes (e.g. benefits of signers in context of museum)

51


How might a user-centred approach to learning disabilities work?

• 3 year project based at UWE has a focus is on accessibility of outcomes of a service rather than the resources

• Emphasis moves from the creator of the Web resources to the end user

• End user will be involved in content creation and also the design & creation of the system from the beginning of the development cycle through to its conclusion

• Purpose of this approach is not to try to create a system & content that is universally accessible but to try to maximise usefulness & usability for a targeted audience of learning disability users

• Goal aims to be achievable & be more relevant to the specific user group than an approach aimed at creating content by application of international guidelines.

Described in “One World, One Web … But Great Diversity”

Web

Ad

apta

bil

ity

A Challenge For You!You have:

• An institutional repository• An open access policy, which encourages take-up by

others of your research reports and data & teaching & learning resources

But:• Research papers are in non-conformant PDFs &

learning resources are mostly PowerPoints & other proprietary formats.

What do you do:• Mandate use of HTML in repositories?• Switch off services until workflow issues resolved?• Or something else?

52

Web

Ad

apta

bil

ity

53

ConclusionsThere’s a need:

• For accessibility researchers to gather evidence on proposed solutions to accessibility

• To explore ways in which changes in our understandings can be adopted and deployed

This talk:• Explores limitations of current approaches• Suggests alternative approaches

Future work:• Need to critique the critique• Need to develop better models for change control• Need to learn from the past

Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that the emperor was naked!

Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that the emperor was naked!

54

Questions

Questions are welcome

Education

From Web Accessibility 2.0 to Web Adaptability (1.0)