Accessibility and Personalisation: New Technologies: same old issues


 * Back to Accessibility and Personalisation Section.
 * Audio File of Presentation - Lawrie Phipps, JISC (MP3 Format - 7.6Mb, Length: 8 minutes).
 * Notes from Presentation and Discussion on Accessibility and Personalisation - Lawrie Phipps, JISC.
 * Transcript of MP3 Audio File Presentation by Lawrie Phipps, JISC.

Session Description
This short introduction by Lawrie Phipps will look at how the emergence of new social technologies may have the capacity to truly create inclusive educational experiences for a range of users that can be broadly considered under the umbrella term inclusion.

As well as looking at issues of accessibility, Lawrie will also outline some of the challenges that face the sector with regards to new technology, gender, age and ethnicity and argue what we can learn from the different experiences from different issues.

On a final note and as a debating point we will consider the ethics of the issue and look to our own inherent prejudices and try and identify ways of shifting the paradigm.

Session Notes
Inclusion includes access for people in the way they want. What do we mean when we talk about inclusion?


 * The disadvantaged,
 * Not middle-class,
 * Gender,
 * Etc.

However, because we, as developers, come from a certain background, there will always be a problem with how we understand the user's perspective. Our perspective is the environment in which we work and so we base our perceptions on that.

Gender, ethnicity, religion, and other social areas have not yet been addressed by the Accessibility SIG (Special Interest Group). The SIG needs to take these issues forward and to look at the ethics involved.

Social software, such as Second Life (an synthethic avatar environment), does not currently allow one to build oneself as a physical representation of who one actually is. For example, disabled and religious identities are not possible in Second Life - everything is standard, and social software does not facilitate different types of users.

A personal environment should allow the content to be displayed as the learner prefers, according to their needs. Although Web 2.0 enables this, it still takes away the user's online identity.

One size does not fit all and there should be a diversity of solutions. We also need to consider people's different learning styles. Control needs to pass to the learners regarding the way in which they access learning. It is not possible to determine what a learner needs, or when. We need to allow people to modify the way in which content is presented so that they can get it when they want it, in the way they want it. The solution does not even have to be technological. However, there is a danger that there may not be enough guidance on how users could or why they would want to change their interface.

Small is beautiful. The use of smaller standards and tools can help to provide personalised solutions. However, there is some level of conflict between the needs of the producers and the needs of the consumers, so there is a need to bridge that gap. We must remember that the world is a social place and that we do tend to do things for each other. Therefore, learners could design their own toolset, which others could change or adapt.

The essence of accessibility lies with the actual interface onto the content. Therefore, content needs to be separated from presentation. We have started by going down the standardisation route but perhaps now, we need to look at personalisation. How can we allow people to access content in the way they want? How can we allow people to "design" their own interfaces, especially when learners are not often the expert and they do not always know what they need (although sometimes they do)? However, it is important the user is in the position to make that decision.

What about single parents? We're not addressing the social issues here but we do need to find out where the commonalities lie. More work is needed in this area.