Discussion Session 1: Funding and Future Work

Back to "Discussion Session 1 Section" of Accessibility SIG Meeting 4th June 2007.

This discussion can be continued on the CETIS Accessibility JISCMail list, under "Discussion Topic 1: Funding and Future Work".

Presentation

 * Most funding for accessibility in educational environments comes from JISC and EU.


 * There are no specific calls for accessibility from JISC, although accessibility should be a requirement across all relevant bids. Some projects from the recent JISC e-Learning Capital programme will be looking at user owned technologies (and personal learning environments), which will have some reference to accessibility.


 * New technologies such as mobile and Web 2.0 technologies are rapidly coming to the fore – Is it all happening too quickly for accessibility considerations to be taken into account or is there a greater opportunity for accessible applications to be developed?


 * Growth of social software, such as SecondLife, YouTube, Facebook, etc – Again, it's growing very quickly. Most of it is inherently inaccessible as some of it (e.g. SecondLife) is very visual and requires motor skills.  On the other hand, a lot of such software is (or is being made open source) so that there are greater opportunities for people to improve accessibility (just not the initial developers).  There is pressure on many institutions to move towards the use of mobile, Web 2.0 and social software technologies (for coolness factor, if nothing else), does use of these technologies help or hinder students with disabilities?  Do we need to get involved to make current technologies accessible or create our own?

Back to Top of Page

Discussion Questions
These questions are just to get the ball rolling. Things we might need to talk about:


 * Areas where there are gaps in funded accessibility work in e-learning;
 * Is funding required?
 * If so, who should provide it?
 * Should there be specific funding calls?


 * What about the accessibility new technologies, such as:
 * Web 2.0, mobile technologies, and social software, such as YouTube, SlideShare, Scribd, etc?
 * Should specific work be funded or should it be developed on an ad hoc basis by the web community?
 * Personalisation and use of students' own technologies? Personalisation is big on the JISC agenda these days and there has been some funding in this area (although not specifically from an accessibility point of view).
 * Does that matter?
 * Do we need further funding in this area?
 * Is personalisation the way forward?


 * In what projects should TechDis, the Accessibility SIG, and the community be involved?
 * Are there any projects etc we should be involved in?
 * How can the community be involved?
 * What can we offer?

Back to Top of Page

Feedback
Please note that these comments are not necessarily the view of TechDis or CETIS, but are feedback from the discussions held.

Possible Future Accessibility Work

 * Accessible Tools - rather than more specifications for tools which don't exist. Successful applications tend to grow from small beginnings in the real world. Also tools which push (accessibility) advice in context to users whilst they access particular software features.


 * Collaboration - Different institutions could get together to produce VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) content for particular groups of disabilities or solve particular VLE issues. Funding for collaborative developments, e.g. OSS (Open Source Software), would benefit the largest possible groups, rather than the exciting leading-edge stuff.


 * Repository of Practice – Both to show what's bad (in order to warn people off the things they shouldn't do) and what’s good (examples of the exciting things that can be done). Real problem is lack of time / knowledge / techical resource, but (lack of) funding often used as an excuse for institutions, more often (at the pratitioner end).  So continuing support for the development of expertise and examples of good practice seems to be the priority.


 * Accessibility Evaluations of Project Tools and Techniques - The results of accessibility evaluations by actual users (rather than "experts") of project tools and techniques could be made available as an external resource that could be shared across a range of institutions.


 * CPD (Continuing Professional Development) - Training and skills for people working with students or designing courses to ensure that they are aware of accessibility issues. Accessibility won't improve until people own the problem at institutional level.  Accessibility needs to be owned by technologists, course deliverers and leaders, teachers and lecturers.  In eLearning, as with many other areas, accessibility is not an absolute - much much more could be done in staff development to understand where standards apply and how their use can actually save everyone time and grief.


 * (Accessibility) Evaluation of Web 2.0 Applications - It is important to find out who is using Web 2.0 technologies, what academics and students are doing with them, why they are being used, and the benefits of using these technologies as against the more traditional types. Work to create new accessible Web 2.0 applications shouldn't be undertaken until such an evaluation has taken place.  There is a need for evaluation of accessibility perspectives of new technologies.  For example, using screen readers with wikis can be a nightmare, but how does one know and how does one find out which bits don't work?

Funding Issues

 * Specific Funded Accessibility Stream v. Accessibility Clauses - Although a funded accessibility stream would ensure that there was a focus on specific accessibility issues, it may result in a narrower view of accessibility. People might, for example, focus specifically on visual impairments or dyslexia, rather than take the wider view of user-centred design. On the other hand, lip service is often paid to accessibility clauses in project bids.
 * Additional Funding for Accessibility Evaluation in Projects - Accessibility must be addressed at the planning stage of projects and additional funding could be made available for someone to check that accessibility has been included (but this could be quite expensive).


 * Changes in Terminology - "E-learning" is being lost as a term and is now often referred to now as "technology enhanced learning", "blended learning", etc. Similarly, the term "accessibility" seems to be replaced by "inclusion" (JISC, for example, seems to be using "inclusion" instead of "accessibility").  These changes in terminology can have a negative effect on funding applications, particularly if the incorrect term is used.

End of Discussion Session 1: Back to Top of Page.