Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes

ABSTRACT

The work of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is described in a set of technical guidelines designed to maximise accessibility to digital resources. Further activities continue to focus on technical developments, with current discussions exploring the potential merits of use of Semantic Web and Web 2.0 approaches. In this paper we argue that the focus on technologies can be counter-productive. Rather than seeking to enhance accessibility through technical innovations, the authors argue that the priority should be for a user-focussed approach, which embeds best practices through the development of achievable policies and processes and which includes all stakeholders in the process of maximising accessibility.

The paper reviews previous work in this area and summarises criticisms of WAI's approach. The paper further develops a tangram model which describes a pluralistic, as opposed to a universal, approach to Web accessibility, which encourages creativity and diversity in developing accessible services. Such diversity will need to reflect the context of usage, including the aims of a service (informational, educational, cultural, etc.), the users' and the services providers' environment.

The paper describes a stakeholder approach to embedding best practices, which recognises that organisations will encounter difficulties in developing sustainable approaches by addressing only the needs of the end user and the Web developer. The paper describes work which has informed the ideas in this paper and plan for further work, including an approach to advocacy and education which coins the "Accessibility 2.0" term to describe a renewed approach to accessibility, which builds on previous work but prioritises the importance of the user. The paper concludes by describing the implications of the ideas described in this paper for WAI and for accessibility practitioner stakeholders.

REFERENCES

• 1: Accessibility of resources in institutional repositories, Digital Repositories mailing List, December 2006. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind0612&L=jisc-repositories
• 2: ALERT. (2005) Guidelines on using VLEs with disabled students. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.dur.ac.uk/alert/guidelines/pdf/alert_allVLEguidelines.pdf
• 3: Alexander, D. (2003) How accessible are Australian University Web Sites? AusWeb03. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw03/papers/alexander3/
• 4: Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee. (2004) Guidelines on Information Access for students with print disabilities. Retrieved April 10^th 2007:http://www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/publications/policy/statements/
• 5: BSI (2005) PAS 78: Guide to good practice in commissioning accessible websites. BSI.
• 6: Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 7: Carey K. (2005) Accessibility: The Current Situation and New Directions. Ariadne 44, June 2005. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/carey/
• 8: Chancellor's Office California Community Colleges. (1999) Distance education: access guidelines for students with disabilities. Retrieved April 9^th 2007, http://www.htctu.net/publications/guidelines/distance_ed/distedguidelines.pdf
• 9: Chisholm W. and Henry S. (2005) Interdependent components of Web accessibility. Proceedings of W4A at WWW2005: International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility. New York: ACM Press.
• 10: Clark J. (2006) To Hell with WCAG 2. A List Apart No. 217 Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2
• 11: Clark, J. (2007) Letter to Tim Berners-Lee: Time to cancel WCAG 2.0 Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/TBL/
• 12: Department of Health and Human Services (2006) Research-based Web design and Usability Guidelines. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html
• 13: Disability Rights Commission. (2004) The Web: access and inclusion for disabled people. London: TSO.
• 14: Henry, S. L. (2006) Introduction to Web accessibility. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php
• 15: IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2004b) IMS Guidelines for Developing Accessible Learning Applications. Version 1.0 White Paper. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility#accguide
• 16: Kelly B., Sloan D., Phipps L., Petrie H. and Hamilton F. (2005) Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity? A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (, Japan, 10 May 2005). New York:ACM Press. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/
• 17: Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. (2004) Developing A Holistic Approach for E-Learning Accessibility. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/cjtl-2004/
• 18: Kelly, B. and Brown, S. (2007) Professional Forum: Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic And User-Centred Approach To Web Accessibility, Museums and the Web 2007. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http:/www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/mw-2007/professional-forum/
• 19: National Institute on Aging (2002) Older adults and information technology: A compendium of scientific research and web site accessibility guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• 20: Nielsen, J. (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R. L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 21: Pearson, E. J. and Koppi, T. (2001) Inclusion and online learning opportunities: designing for accessibility. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 10, 2, 17--28.
• 22: Petrie, H., King, N. and Hamilton, F. (2005) Accessibility of museum, library and archive websites: the MLA audit. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.mla.gov.uk/website/policy/Diversity/Web_Accessibility
• 23: Petrie, H. and Kheir, O. (2007) The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. CHI 2007 Proceedings
• 24: Pickard J. (2006) Whistle stop WCAG 2.0: To Hell … and back. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200608/whistlestop-wcag-2-to-hell-and-back/
• 25: Powell, N., Moore, D., Gray, J., Finlay, J. and Reaney, J. (2004) Dyslexia and learning programming, Italics, 13, 2, Retreived April 9^th 2007: http://www.ics.Itsn.ac.uk/pub/italics/Vo13-2/dyslexia.pdf
• 26: Public Sector Needs Better Guidance On Web Accessibility, E-Government Bulletin (Issue 226, 13 November 2006) Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/accessibility-summit-2006-11/
• 27: Rainger, P. (2003) A dyslexic perspective on e-content accessibility. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=2_2_1_2_3
• 28: Raymond E. (1998) The Cathedral and the Bazaar, First Monday. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/
• 29: Response to WCAG 2.0, [e-mail] list. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0174.html
• 30: Seale, J., E-learning and disability in higher education: accessibility research and practice. Routledge London.
• 31: Seale, J., A contextualised model of accessible e-learning practice in higher education institutions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22, (2), 268--288.
• 32: Seeman L. Formal objection explained. W3C WCAG 2.0 Public Comments list. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0119
• 33: Sloan D., Kelly B., Heath A., Petrie H., Hamilton F. and Phipps L. (2006) Contextual Accessibility: Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines. Proceedings of the 2006 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (Edinburgh, Scotland, 23 May 2006). New York: ACM Press, 121--131. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/
• 34: Sloan D. (2006) Two cultures? The disconnect between the Web standards movement and research based Web design guidelines for older people. Gerontechnology Journal 5(2) (July 2006) 106--112.
• 35: Sloan D., Dickinson A., McIlroy N. and Gibson L. (2006) Evaluating the Usability of Online Accessibility Information. Final Project Report. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=3_10_10_1
• 36: Spindler, T. (2004) The accessibility of web pages for midsized college and university libraries, Reference & User Services Quarterly, 42, 2, 149--154.
• 37: The Plain English Campaign. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
• 38: UK Web Focus (2007) Scribd - Doing For Documents What Slideshare Does For Presentations, March 29^th 2007. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/
• 39: W3C (1999) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
• 40: W3C (2000) Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. February 2000. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-AUTOOLS/
• 41: W3C (2002) User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. December 2002. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/
• 42: W3C (2005) Web Accessibility Initiative. Policies relating to Web accessibility. Retrieved April 10^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
• 43: W3C (2006) Web Accessibility Initiative WCAG 2.0 FAQ. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#done
• 44: W3C (2006) Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG). 23 March 2006. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/
• 45: W3C (2006) Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility, W3C. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/Harmon
• 46: W3C (2007) Education & Outreach Working Group (EOWG). 30 March 2007. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/
• 47: WCAG Samurai. Retrieved April 9^th 2007: http://www.wcagsamurai.org/
• 48: Witt, N. A. J. and McDermott, A. P. (2002) Achieving SENDA-compliance for Web Sites in further and higher education: an art or a science? in L. Phipps., A. Sutherland and J. Seale (eds). Access all areas: disability, technology and learning. pp. 42--49 Oxford: ALT/TechDis.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.2 Social Issues

General Terms:
Documentation, Human Factors, Legal Aspects, Measurement, Standardization, Verification

Keywords:
WAI, WCAG, contextual design, guidelines, methodologies, people with disabilities, web accessibility