Back to Previous Accessibility SIG Meetings Index.
17th Accessibility SIG Meeting
The 17th JISC CETIS Accessibility SIG Meeting was held on Wednesday 13th May, 2009 at Technium CAST, Bangor.
This meeting followed the more traditional SIG meeting format of presentations, demonstrations, and discussion.
by Elaine Pearson and Stavroula Gkatzidou, Accessibility Research Centre, University of Teesside.
The Accessibility Research Centre's latest research on the creation of adaptable personal learning environments was presented by Elaine and Stavroula.
The ARC (Accessibility Research Centre) at the University of Teesside is group of academics and researchers working on a variety of accessibility projects, including:
Standard VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments), such as BlackBoard, are not adaptable and so cannot be tailored to meet individual needs. Generally, students need more flexibility than simply being able to choose from a set list of individual components. They need their individual needs and preferences to be met, which might be as a result of a disability or different learning style. Therefore, different learning objects need to be delivered in a variety of different ways in order to meet different requirements.
The presentation focussed on the Portland APLE (Adaptable Personal Learning Environment) developed by the ARC and included a demonstration. Portland was designed for students with physical and learning disabilities, ranging from moderate to severe, aged 16-25. Prior to its development, there was no learning environment that met their needs and which included accessible and adaptable learning activities. The Portland APLE includes many of the standard VLE tools, such as e-mail, timetabling, tutor tools, etc, as well as a student profiler, which allows tutors to enter the type of interface, level of interaction and learning level of each student.
One of the most challenging issues was that of providing an accessible log-in for students. Various alternatives were considered, including wireless remote devices, which proved to be costly. In the end, a cheaper alternative was developed. As the APLE has a symbols-based interface (using PCS (Picture Communication Symbols), Rebus, or Makaton), which is compatible with switch, mouse, and keyboard users, it made sense to provide a symbols-based log-in. (As the interface is symbols-based, it is not screen-reader compatible, although other forms of audio are used. This was a conscious decision as none of the students were screen reader users.) Each learner is given a three symbol password, so in order to log-in, they must select their given symbols from a list. Students really want to have their own log-ins as it gives them a sense of independence and parity with other computer users.
Once logged-on, courses are shown as icons and students can e-mail other students or their tutors using a list of pre-prepared symbol sentences. Feedback of individual actions is provided, including confirmation that an e-mail has been sent.
Student timetables display one day at a time and are divided into morning, afternoon and evening.
Learning objects were developed by Cambridge Training Ltd and include activities such as colour matching exercises. Students can print out a record of the activities undertaken in each session.
Other components of the APLE include:
The learner specifies their user profile (PAL), which has meta-data. The learning objects also have meta-data, so the TASS ties to match the learning object to the user profile.
The designers of Portland worked with students right from the beginning, with the role of students in choosing the symbols used for the interface being particularly important. Since the development of Portland, other colleges and tutors have become interested in the APLE but as Portland was designed specifically for the students of Portland College, changes would need to be made which would match their particular needs. For example, a feeder school for Portland College, which had a number of students with autism, wanted an interface that would suit their students’ needs. So how could these diverse needs be accommodated by a single environment? It was decided that an open source approach would be the best step forward so that other colleges could make their own adaptations. This will be the next stage of the project. The team at the ARC also want to develop a community of practice consisting of tutors, designers, disability experts and learners who can establish a set of requirements/profiles. These requirements might only cover one set of learners in one location, but they might also be beneficial to other learners throughout the world. The intention is to:
However, finance is still required to carry out these stages. On top of this, IT (Information Technology) departments tend to prefer fixed systems rather than those that offer personal choice and flexibility within an institutional environment. Therefore, one of the challenges is try and develop a framework for "managed adaptability" so that IT departments feel comfortable in supporting such flexibility.
The ARC team are particularly keen to receive suggestions on how to develop the community and adaptations that could be made for particular groups. For example, sign language adaptations will need to be made but should they be as BSL (British Sign Language), ASL (American Sign Language), or another type of sign language? So if you have any suggestions, please contact Elaine Pearson.
by Craig Mill, JISC RSC (Regional Support Centre) Scotland and North East.
Craig Mill gave a demonstration of the critically acclaimed AccessApps toolset and gave us all a set that we could try out.
The AccessApps toolset is a set of portable applications, which are stored on a USB (Universal Serial Bus) stick. These applications can be run on any Windows machine from the launcher on the USB stick (as yet, they're not available for other platforms) and students can use the applications on any computer in their institution or at home. This is of particular significance as it has been difficult for students to find applications that they can also use on their home computers and gives them some degree of independence. As it consists of a number of open source applications, including OpenOffice, AccessApps can also be used by students who cannot afford to buy software.
The AccessApps toolset is just one of three toolsets, which make up the EduApps family and which can be downloaded free from the website. EduApps consist of:
The launcher on the USB stick links straight to Microsoft Vista's voice recognition application. It also includes user guides in a number of formats ranging from print ready to DAISY (Digital Accessible Information SYstem). The launcher application (ASuite) is open source and keyboard friendly. However, whilst JAWS will read its menus, unfortunately, they can’t be read by NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access). Various aspects of the launcher can also be customised, such as the logo and theme, and applications can be added or deleted from the suite (Note: if an application is deleted, it is not deleted from the USB stick itself, only from the launcher menu, so it can always be re-instated if required). Multiple programs can be launched keyboard access or a minimal number of clicks.
There are many applications contained within the AccessApps toolset, including:
Not all of the applications are actually included on the USB stick. In some cases, the launcher simply provides a link to the application for downloading.
JISC RSC Scotland North and West has an Access and Inclusion Forum on Ning, which is a "place to discuss, share, and join other colleagues who support learners with additional support needs in further and higher education". New members are welcome. Also JISC RSC Scotland South West and North East has an e-Learning Accessibility and Inclusion blog, which also has links to further information on AccessApps.
by E A Draffan, University of Southampton.
Web2Access came out of the TechDis funded Lexdis Project, which provides accessibility strategies developed by students who have first hand experience of e-learning. The Web2Access Project looks at how Web 2.0 technologies integrate with e-learning.
There is no single description of Web 2.0. It covers a number of technologies - including: social communities, sharing, video-sharing, podcasting, blogs, spellcheckers - and tends not to be very accessible. One of the reasons why Web 2.0 software seems to be so popular may be that it is easier to use than institutional software. For example, students who find VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) difficult to use may use Google Docs instead of Blackboard; Facebook, Skype or Messenger instead of Blackboard forums, etc.
Web2Access examined the various activities undertaken by students and then split them into categories, ranging from annotation of multimedia to virtual classrooms. The Project then took over 130 Web 2.0 applications within the various activity areas, and tested them for accessibility and usability. Testing web pages using checklists only is not a sound basis for determining accessibility. Students don't generally talk about their disabilities but about the difficulties they have accessing technology. Therefore, the Web2Access site aims to inform tutors about the issues around using particular Web 2.0 technologies and how accessible applications are for people with particular disabilities.
Each test area has its own webpage, which identifies which part of the W3C WCAG 2.0 (World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) is relevant, how the test was undertaken, and provides links to examples and advice. Although some applications, such as YouTube or mind mapping, may be considered inaccessible to people with certain disabilities, they may be very useful for other students. For example, mind-mapping software is generally not accessible for screen reader users, but may be of great benefit to people with dyslexia.
Most students use a browser to access web content but may not be aware of technologies, such as toolbars or assistive technologies, which change the way in which the website is presented. So how does a student know what technologies are available and whether the functionality provided is what they really need? Perhaps more importantly, how do disability assessors know about the functionality of each piece of software (assistive or otherwise)? For example, some assistive technologies will spell-check blog postings, whilst others won't. There are now so many options that students often find it hard to make decisions on which technology to use. Issues such as cost, time, ease-of-use, existing skills, etc will all affect the decision. However, time is often a major deciding factor when students choose one application over another. A simple and easy-to-use web toolkit may be preferred over full-functioned (and expensive) assistive technologies.
Tutors often assume that students are more technologically savvy than they are, but students also tend to admire their tutors for their academic knowledge and want them to be as informed about technology. Students also value 24/7 internet access and expect to be able to use their own technologies, which they often carry on a USB stick. Therefore, it is important that IT (Information Technology) departments don’t lock down the USB ports within an institution.
Whilst many of the major PC-based Web 2.0 applications, such as Facebook are not accessible, their mobile version often is (compare the website version of Facebook with the mobile version and see the Ouch! blog post). Accessible versions of many Web 2.0 applications are also being created by third parties. For example, Jawter is a plug-in for the JAWS screen reader, which makes Twitter more accessible. Web 2.0 applications are moving forward very quickly so the Web2Access site is pretty much created on the fly.
If you would like to follow the work of the LexDis and Web2Access team, there is a LexDis blog. Also, if you have any strategies or Web 2.0 tools which you would like to see evaluated, please contact E A Draffan.
by Lisa Valentine, JISC RSC North West.
Lisa's presentation concentrated on basic log-ins, i.e. actually getting users logged on to the computer itself. This can be surprisingly difficult. For example, Windows XP systems require the use to press the Control, Alt and Delete keys all at the same time, which is impossible for someone who only has functionality in one hand. A simple low-tech solution, such as a piece of wood with three prongs in the same layout as the Control, Alt and Delete keys, could be one workaround. Another more high-tech solution is to use a gaming keyboard that has programmable buttons. The Control, Alt, Delete combination could be programmed onto one key, so only one key press would be required to get to the log-in screen.
Whilst biometric log-ins may seem to be the ideal solution as technically they only require one swipe of the finger, there are still many issues that need to be resolved. For example, where biometric log-ins are used in IT suites, a student would need to register their fingerprint at every machine. Fingerprints from two or three fingers need to be taken in case one gets injured, and the student also needs to remember which fingers to use, which may be difficult for some. Cheap fingerprint readers are available and there are also biometric readers for the iris, for example, but generally they require fine motor control, and this may be impossible for some students with motor impairments.
Smartcards and swipe cards can also be used to access a computer but again fine motor control skills are needed and cards can easily be lost. Lisa gave an example of the way log-ins are dealt with at Beaumont College, which caters for students with learning difficulties and has a an arts-based curriculum. They use the Microsoft Trusted Platform Module, which uses RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification). Students in wheelchairs carry a proximity token, which automatically logs them onto a computer, when they are within a certain distance, in a similar way to an Oyster Card.
The Wheeltop Project at Beaumont College aimed to improve access to communication and IT for students with communication impairments. It uses Tablet PCs (Personal Computers) from Smartbox, using Grid2 (which can provides a great deal of control, such as opening curtains, etc) operated by a switch.
The Assisted Login Prototypes is an e-Folio project led by TechDis. e-Portfolios are not generally accessible so this project uses photo passwords, where users click on a secret shape, photo, or certain part of the photo to log in, for example, three clicks on the bonnet of a car.
What suits one user as a log-in means may not suit another. However, providing students with their own log-ins and passwords provides a sense of independence. Some students have difficulties remembering their log-ins and so may have to wait a long time before the IT department can let them onto their college network. Log-in solutions do not always need to be technical.
by Mary Taylor, Open University.
The Open University's MA in Online and Distance Learning, includes a module on Accessible Online Learning: Supporting Disabled Students (cost £1050). This module is worth 30 credits and takes 20 weeks. The first part of the course focuses on the learning experiences of students with disabilities. The second parts looks at the technical aspects, whilst the third covers the current discussions with regard to accessibility in education. It uses material based on Jane Seale's eLearning and Disability in Higher Education book.
End of Accessibility SIG Meeting 13th May 2009: Back to Top of Page
