Discussion Session 2: TechDis' and the Accessibility SIG’s Remit

Back to "Discussion Session 2 Section" of Accessibility SIG Meeting 4th June 2007.

This discussion can be continued on the CETIS Accessibility JISCMail list, under "Discussion Topic 2: TechDis' and the Accessibility SIG's Remit".

TechDis' Remit
Most of what's been fed back in the first discussion session is actually TechDis' core work.

TechDis suppport FE (Further Education), HE (Higher Education), specialist colleges, ACL (Adult and Community Learning), offender learning, the Disability Equality Scheme, etc. They work with JISC CETIS, Becta (which has a schools focus), RSCs (Regional Support Centres), Subject Centres - in fact, anyone who's got anything to do with accessibility. It is also involved in a small element of standards' work. Therefore, it is important that TechDis work with different partners in order to raise accessibility awareness. The TechDis team is growing - it started off with three and now has ten staff.

People at grass roots level don't know about JISC CETIS and standards, but TechDis could act as a bridge between the practitioners and the technicians, because they talk to everyone from first time practitioners to specialist colleges. TechDis could also influence research institutions to ensure that they include accessibility.

So where does this core area of work fit in with the work of the Accessibility SIG? TechDis is concerned with the here and now (practitioner side), whilst JISC CETIS is concerned with the future (technological side) and this SIG could be an important bridge between the two.

JISC CETIS Accessibility SIG's Remit
The JISC CETIS Accessibility SIG has a number of aims:


 * It tries to encourage best practice in e-learning accessibility:
 * by holding face to face SIG meetings (hopefully with some virtual elements in the near future);
 * by running virtual resources such as a website, blog and discussion list;
 * keeping track of relevant work, etc.


 * To run a community of practice:
 * Several face to face meetings per year;
 * Ideal for networking and problem solving;
 * Provides a forum for discussion;
 * Issues can be discussed and solutions found;
 * Collaborations can also be made, etc.


 * It focuses on the development, application and use of accessibility guidelines and specifications in e-learning:
 * Tracks and reports on development of these guidelines and specifications;
 * Asks the community for input and feedback;
 * Act as an interface between the FE and HE community and the specification producers;
 * Acts as a showcase for people to demonstrate their use of these guidelines and specifications, etc.


 * It also acts as an arena for general technical developments within the accessibility field:
 * By encouraging demonstrations of relevant technical work to the SIG;
 * Provides a forum for e-learning technologists to learn and talk about new developments, etc.


 * Jointly badged with TechDis:
 * Some slight overlap with the TechDis remit;
 * TechDis has a standing session at each SIG meeting;
 * Ensures a greater coverage of the accessibility area.

Back to Top of Page

Discussion Questions
We'll be looking at how relevant the SIG and TechDis are and to try and find out areas where we need to focus more.


 * What do you feel TechDis and the SIG should be doing?
 * After having heard about our remits, is there anything else we should be doing for the community?
 * Would some sort of virtual element be useful?
 * Should the SIG carry on in its role as a Community of Practice or should there be a more pro-active element?


 * Is the SIG still relevant and useful?
 * Should the SIG expand its remit to cover areas such as:
 * UID (Universal Instructional Design);
 * Inclusion;
 * Personalisation;
 * Widening participation, etc?
 * Are there any areas which should be covered?
 * Should they be part of TechDis’ and/or the SIG's remit?
 * Should the SIG still be jointly badged with TechDis?
 * Should it be part of JISC CETIS, TechDis, or other body?

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.

Suggested Activities

 * Influence - The SIG was described by one person as a "talking shop", so should it be a body that has more influence? If so, in what areas?


 * Remit - In line with the holistic approach, should the group should look at all accessibility issues not just e-accessibility? If so, where should the line be drawn? Would issues about ramps to buildings be included? (Sharon’s note:  The Accessibuilt JISCMail list and SURFACE deal with the accessibility of buildings).  On the other hand, access to learning ought to be key rather than access to buildings. Any widening of the remit should be considered very carefully, particularly with regard to how broad and manageable the group might then become, and because some of these areas might already be covered by other groups, eg Becta.  There was also a suggestion that the SIG needs to move from accessibility into usability or adapatability, and that the naming and the focus of the SIG need to shift according to what the community wants.  The SIG could look at the practical as well as technical issues - e.g. accessibility for the users and guidance for institutions.


 * Face to Face Meetings - Considered as really important, particularly during lunch, when much informal networking occurs. There are advantages of face to face that you don't get with virtual meetings.  Perhaps smaller, more frequent regional meetings and fewer national meetings could be held.  Some people who are unable to attend meetings find the virtual presence useful, but still find that there is no substitute for face to face meetings.


 * Virtual Meetings - Could be valuable as a supplement to face to face meetings, particularly if there are issues with travelling. Obviously, the remit, focus and content would need to be much shorter than that of a face to face meeting.

The SIG's Relevance

 * Group of Experts - There is a need for a critical mass of expertise to look at accessibility issues, which includes the technical interoperability side of CETIS and practice base of TechDis. The focus should remain with accessibility, the group is extremely relevant and useful and living in the right place - both CETIS and TechDis are established as authorities in their field.


 * Bridging the Gap - There is value in a group which talks to both the technologists and the practitioners and users. The SIG is a useful way of getting the user led focus, rather than simply a one-sided focus (i.e. only technology or only practice), and it brings both parties together so everyone knows what each other is doing.  There is a standards and specifications side to the group and a practitioner side, but there seems to be relatively little understanding of the value of one group to the other.  However, the SIG could do that informing job between the two groups - to inform people who are involved in setting standards about the concerns of practitioners, and to provide practitioners with advice about changes in standards and specifications.  It's not often that you get pedagogists and technologists together!


 * Individuality of TechDis and CETIS - TechDis and CETIS (Accessibility) should remain separate, because the value of the SIG lies in the fact that it allows practitioners (TechDis) to get an understanding of some of the technical issues (CETIS) raised. However, there should be an explicit link between the two groups (CETIS and TechDis) other than just via the SIG.


 * Brand Confusion - Having the two badges on the group is confusing, particularly as the TechDis brand is probably stronger than the CETIS brand. This may then attract people who want to find out what the group is about rather than necessarily being able to contribute, which may not be a bad thing.


 * Expectations and Outputs - The expectations of the group need to be clarified. Also, there should be an outline of what outputs the group will produce as the value of the group lies in its outputs.  Maintaining the group as a forum for questioning is not sustainable.  Specific outputs from the SIG would be useful to feedback to colleagues, particularly as some meeting delegates represent large teams and it’s often difficult to capture everything that happens in the meeting (Sharon's note: Currently, the group doesn’t produce any hard outputs, but acts as a forum for people to share their issues, concerns and solutions and as an interface with the specification developers.  However, notes and presentations from meetings are always made available on the JISC CETIS Accessibility website.)


 * Audience - There should be a healthy mix of both practitioners and technologists within the group (Sharon’s note: A quick straw poll on the day noted that the mix was around 60% technologists, 40% practitioners and that around 15% of people fell into both groups). A means of attracting both audiences needs to be found.  One way to do this might be to come up with issues and share solutions.  On the other hand, perhaps we need to decide which audience we ought to appeal to more.  The group could be a useful means of disseminating the work of TechDis and CETIS, particularly to people who are new to accessibility.


 * Joint Badging and Co-ordination - It doesn't matter how the group is badged or co-ordinated, as it is more important that both organisations (TechDis and CETIS) are involved, because it's beneficial to have a bridge between the technology and standards approach and the practitioner and users approach. The most important thing was that someone take responsibility for the co-ordination and putting together of the agenda. People tend to attend (or not attend) meetings based on what's on the agenda rather than how the group is badged.  It's not the badging that important, but the mechanism as a whole.  It doesn't matter how the group is badged, as long as it is obvious that it is this particular group.  E-mail from the JISCMail mailing list about the group was given priority by people when looking at their inbox.


 * Relevance - Overall, the group is relevant and useful. The role of this group in passing information from the user community to vendors and specification developers has been described as very important.  One comment was that the SIG is considered to be the most influential group of its kind in the world.  The group's work is a constantly useful resource and one respondent stated she relied heavily on the website, wiki and publications to keep in touch with authoritative summaries and overviews.

Back to Top of Page

Possible Ways Forward

 * Continue with the existing joint CETIS-TechDis structure.
 * Continue to bring the different groups together.

End of Discussion Session 2: Back to Top of Page