Discussion Session 3: Specifications, Standards and the Holistic Approach

Back to "Discussion Session 3 Section" of Accessibility SIG Meeting 4th June 2007.

This discussion can be continued on the CETIS Accessibility JISCMail list, under "Discussion Topic 3: Specifications, Standards and the Holistic Approach".

Specifications and Standards

 * Specifications:
 * IMS - The only accessibility specifications for e-learning are those developed by IMS:
 * Accessibility Guidelines – a set of accessibility resources and recommendations for the e-learning community;
 * ACCLIP (Accessibility for Learner Information Package) - a means of describing preferences;
 * ACCMD (AccessForAll Meta-Data) - defines the meta-data that can be used to describe a learning resource's accessibility and its ability to match a learner's preferences.
 * W3C WAI (World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative) – Guidelines only, not aimed at e-learning but many of the recommendations are still valid:
 * ATAG (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines) – designed for authoring tools that produce accessible Web content, and in creating an accessible authoring interface.
 * UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines) - User agents are software, such as browsers, multimedia players, and other programs, which access and display web content.
 * WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) - WCAG may be considered the de facto standard for web-based accessibility.
 * XAG (XML Accessibility Guidelines) - These guidelines explain how to design accessible applications using XML (eXtensible Mark-up Language).
 * The ISO Standard – Individualized Adaptability and Accessibility in E-Learning, Education and Training:
 * Made up of IMS ACCLIP and ACCMD with a few tweaks;
 * Currently at draft level;
 * Future work will include non-digital resources, descriptions of events and places, and language accessibility.
 * Current IMS Work:
 * Updating of ACCLIP and ACCMD to bring them more in line with web services approach;
 * Exercise looking gaps in accessibility provision in other IMS specifications – e.g. Content Packaging, Common Cartridge, Assessment, etc.  Drawing up a charter – Accessibility 2.0 work.

The Holistic Approach
People are trying to cram WCAG into e-learning but it just doesn't fit very well. People are looking for a checklist for e-learning but that's not necessarily the right approach to take.

Accessibility means looking at the whole process and there will be times when it may be more appropriate to have a non 'e' approach.

There needs to be a whole list of alternative arrangements available for students who are not in the traditional classroom. E-learning needs to be thought of as a process and not as a means to an end. The holistic approach is the practitioner end of the standards approach and is a way to try and get everyone to meet in the middle.

See Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility (2005) by Kelly, Phipps, and Howell for more details.

Back to Top of Page

Discussion Questions
We'll be thinking about whether a standards based approach is still relevant or whether a more holistic approach to accessibility is achievable.


 * Why is take-up of the IMS Accessibility Specifications so poor?
 * Are they too complicated?
 * Are they relevant?
 * Are the W3C WAI guidelines all that's needed?
 * Are we still struggling with basic accessibility concepts?


 * Do we need any more specifications/standards?
 * Is what we have enough?
 * Are there areas in which we need more guidelines/specifications?
 * Do we need a UK standard?
 * Are specifications and guidelines necessary?


 * How can the holistic approach to accessibility be supported?
 * Is it practical?
 * Is it open to abuse?
 * How can we put it into practice?
 * What support is needed?
 * Is a "mix and match" approach suitable?
 * Is it possible to have a holistic approach and ensure that accessibility is still considered by using specifications?


 * How can we ensure that accessibility is considered by institutions pushing Web 2.0 applications?
 * Is there a range of accessible web services?
 * If not, who is responsible for providing alternatives?
 * Is this something the SIG and TechDis should champion?

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.

Guidelines, Specifications, and Standards

 * Poor Take-up of Accessibility Specifications - Take-up of the IMS Accessibility Specifications needs to be demand driven, but there is a lack of incentive because customers aren't demanding it, and so they're not being implemented. The actual practitioners (lecturers) aren't requesting these specifications, so they're not being fed into the development process. Is this an issue of lecturer or user education? (Sharon's note: A quick straw poll of the number of system level developers at the meeting showed that there were only three.  ACCLIP works at the system level and across organisations and systems.  Therefore, it may be of less relevance to other members of the group.)  Perhaps the community doesn't always understand why standards are there and for what they’re for.  Standards are created to support specific aspects, but people may be making them do things they're not intended to do.  Specifications and standards should reflect best practice.  Perhaps if they aren't being implemented, then they are not doing this effectively.


 * Value of Guidelines, Specifications and Standards - There is some doubt about the value of standards, guidelines and specifications. If the ones that are already available are not being implemented, then the answer isn't to produce more specifications and standards, but to provide guidelines and explanations of how they can be used and there benefit to developers and practitioners.  "How to" guides can be a useful way of approaching this.  The information contained in the Accessibility Passport might be useful, not necessarily in the context of another standard, but in providing accessibility information.  Accessibility standards may be compared to a definition of religion – whereby a small select group decide what the ultimate truth is.  Specifications are useful because they provide a structure when one first starts looking at accessibility but they do need bringing together.  It would be useful to have examples of good practice from the specifications rather than just the specifications themselves, as this would have more practical value.  Although standards are quite narrow in their remit, they do have some importance.

The Holistic Approach

 * Benefits Everyone - It is practical to have a holistic approach. Providing an equivalent experience can benefit all students, not just those with disabilities.  So it's seen as a very positive approach.  The Accessibility lobby simply does not have enough "clout" to force developers to care - but if we can promote and support the holistic approach and provide information and support, then the new generation of open source applications being developed within our institutions might well improve access for all (persuasion rather than regulation is the key).


 * Combining the Holistic and Standards Approach - It is possible to have combine both approaches in order to ensure that accessibility is considered from all angles but careful consideration needs to be made as to how this can be achieved.


 * Web 2.0 Applications - The accessibility of the interface is more important than the web services themselves, because the user interacts with the applications which sit on top of those web services and that's what needs to be accessible. It may be the students who are setting the pace by using Web 2.0 technologies rather than lecturers pushing such technologies onto the students.  Lecturers may need to look at how students are using social software, such as FaceBook, MySpace, flickr, YouTube etc, and adapt accordingly.  However, how much is accessibility actually considered in "Web 1.0" never mind Web 2.0?  Encouraging Web 2.0 and innovation may actually provide more of the solution than the problem, as long as lecturers aren't too prescriptive in the way they expect students to use Web 2.0 applications.  For example, rather than requesting that all students load something onto MySpace, it may be more productive to ask students to take part in online chats, and to suggest several chat applications that could be used, depending on the student's needs and preferences.  Web 2.0 is a social rather than technical phenomenon, so students bring these technologies into their learning experience of their own accord.  They may also be bringing some accessibility solutions with them.  The web works as long as the kind of applications developed are accessible by the majority, unfortunately, the minority get left behind.  Accessibility also has to be seen holistically here, as some applications of Web 2.0 provide great access benefits to some - and many are OSS (Open  Source Software) or come in OSS flavours. The weight and expertise of the SIG can be used to advantage here.


 * User Preferences - Perhaps users should just be allowed to use their chosen software or application where they can. In that case, user preference may be more important than accessibility (i.e. if one application is inaccessible and the student already has a preference for another, accessible version, does it matter that the original application isn't accessible?).  One example was given of a survey at an institution where staff confessed that they were unsure whether they were "allowed" to use technologies outside of their institutional VLE, but they went ahead and used them anyway.


 * Blended Learning - Many Web 2.0 applications are used in a blended context, but it may just provide a "get out" clause for poor software development. However, there may well be a difference between formal and informal learning situations, long term and short term access to content, and between shared and personal use.  For example, a student may post a whole album of photos onto flickr from a field course, that is only relevant for a week to the actual group who went on the course, it may not need to be accessible, because the student knows all the other members of the group.  However, a lecturer posting up course materials which will be relevant for a couple of years to hundreds of students that the lecturer has never met, will need to be accessible.  It would be useful to have phases of different adjustments that could be made on the fly depending on the student's needs at the time.

Back to Top of Page

Possible Ways Forward

 * Hold a session for the SIG on what the different specifications are, what they are for, and their relevance.

End of Discussion Session 3: Back to Top of Page