Category Archives: accessibility

Using Virtual Worlds to Improve Social Interaction

Posted on by

Rowin’s (Assessment SIG Co-ordinator) has just sent me an article – Virtual Worlds Turn Therapeutic for Autistic Disorders – which describes how virtual worlds are being used for behavioural and social learning.  The article describes how a virtual environment in Second Life, for example, can be used to teach someone how to interact or behave in social situations without fear of consequences.

This safe environment is ideal for people to learn from their mistakes without having to worry about embarrassment, failure, social faux pas, etc.  Virtual worlds can also be a non-threatening means of interacting with other people, particularly for people who are worried about discrimination or who are not able to take part in real world social activities.

Perhaps if we all used virtual worlds to learn how to deal with and face up to our own issues without fear of hurting ourselves or others, the real world would be a better place.

Comment on the Stick (Standards Enforcement) Approach to Accessibility

Posted on by

Headstar’s eAccess Bulletin has the scoop on Accessibility Ultimatum Proposed for UK Government Websites.  Sources claim that government websites will be penalised by being stripped of their “gov.uk” domain names if they don’t meet the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) AA rating.  At the moment, this is still only a draft proposal but if ratified, would mean that all existing government sites would need to have the AA rating by December 2008.

Whilst the government’s intentions are no doubt admirable, WCAG (and I’m assuming they’re talking about WCAG 1.0 here) is useful but still needs a lot of common sense in its implementation.  I’m also assuming that government websites include national government, local government, public libraries, police, fire services, museums, art galleries, etc.  But what about universities, schools, educational bodies, etc?  Is this just the start of a British equivalent of America’s Section 508?  And what happens when WCAG 2.0 is finally ratified?

Whilst the standards approach is useful and can provide a lot of guidance, actual enforcement may mean that alternative approaches to accessibility are not pursued and common sense is not taken into account.  For example, an image with an alt tag will easily pass a Bobby check but what if that alt tag is completely meaningless – <alt=”gobbledygook”>? Innovative ways of tackling accessibility problems may not be thought about or explored – and in any case, it’s quite possible to be completely WCAG compliant and still be inaccessible.

So here are my somewhat Utopian ideas for an approach to accessibility:

1. Education, education, education – all design, web design and IT courses should automatically include a complusory accessibility and usability module.

2. Standards and guidelines – for “guiding” developers, not hitting them over the head with a big stick. However, they should remain as guidelines and recommendations and should not be forced on people, unless it has been proven without a doubt that a particular guideline is useful and can be successfully applied in all situations.  This is not always the case.  For example, anyone can add an alt tag to an image but does everyone know the best type of text to put in it?

3. Common sense and innovation – this is perhaps more wishful thinking on my part but we should all use our common sense and our understanding of the barriers in conjunction with guidelines and see if there are alternative, better ways of doing things, particularly as new technologies and approaches come to the fore.

4. User testing – by all types of users, from the “silver surfer” to the person with learning disabilities as well as the average person in the street.  We all know what we should do but often time and resource constraints mean that lip-service is often only paid.

Whilst standards are great for things that can be set in stone, such as nuts and bolts, sizes of credit cards etc, they are not so successful for “fuzzy” applications (like users), who have many different needs and preferences depending on different contexts, situations and how they’re feeling at the time.  Fuzzy applications (users) need fuzzy blended, complementary approaches so taking the big stick of standards enforcement to developers could be a bit of a backward step in the support and encouragement of accessibility.

News: Disability Rights Commission Moves Home

Posted on by

As of 1st October 2007, the DRC (Disability Rights Commission) has been brought under the wing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which now takes on the responsibilities and powers of the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality), DRC (Disability Rights Commission) and the EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission).

The archived site of the DRC is still available

Could on-screen narration be discriminatory?

Posted on by

Cathy Moore has an interesting blog post entitled “Should we narrate on-screen text?, where she suggests that automatic narration of on-screen text can actually be detrimental to learners. She states that learners generally read more quickly than the narration is read – screen reader users can “read” text very quickly -and that learners are then forced to move at the pace of the narration.

Although some learners may find on-screen narration useful such as young children, learners who are learning the language of the learning resource, and learners with low literacy skills or cognitive difficulties, on-screen narration should not be included just to try and fulfil obligations towards students with disabilities. Automatically including on-screen narration just to fulfil SENDA (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act) obligations, could actually discriminate against students who do not need on-screen narration.

Therefore, the provision of on-screen narration should be considered very carefully and, if it is considered necessary, offered as an alternative or option, but the original resource (or an alternative) should still be accessible to screen reader and other technology users.

Keeping it Legal – The Complementary Approach to Accessibility

Posted on by

Following on from my post One Person’s Strategy is Another’s Barrier, where I talked about using complementary approaches to e-learning resource accessibility, Becta’s Making Software Accessible: A Guide for Schools (PDF format, 468Kb) helpfully provides a summary of the legal requirements in the UK (United Kingdom) surrounding the provision of e-learning resources. One of the points states that:

“…use of an ICT [Information Communication Technology] with an accessibility barrier is not necessarily unlawful under the DDA [Disability Discrimination Act], so long as:
* Existence of the barrier is justifiable on academic, technical or financial grounds; and
* The educational organisation using the ICT provides equivalent alternatives to allow affected disabled people to reach the same learning objective as provided by the inaccessible ICT.

Where a barrier exists and can be justified on the grounds specified… above, information about the justification should be provided by the ICT producer and used by the educational organisation to inform provision of suitable alternatives.” (Becta (2007). Making Software Accessible: A Guide for Schools. Accessed 12/09/07.)

Perhaps it would be helpful if all resources were marked with metadata which described what a learning resource consisted of.  So for example, a Flash animation with captions could be identified as having audio, visuals, and captions.  This would help learning technologists and learning resource providers to provide alternatives to students.  The IMS AccessForAll Meta-data Specification provides a way of marking up e-learning resources with metadata which describes their modality – e.g. “hasText”, “hasAudio” etc.  A simpler format has also been developed by TechDis – the Accessibility Passport.  This idea allows content creators, tutors, and students to describe the accessibility of a resource in the form of a passport which travels with the resource (perhaps in the form of an online web page).  For example, a content creator describing a Flash animation could state that it is in English, with audio, visual and captions.  A student might then comment to say that there is a time lag between the animation and the captions or a tutor could leave a comment to say that it had been translated into German and its location.  Another content developer might comment that an alternative resource for the same learning objective had been developed for visually impaired people.  (Obviously, I’m not going into IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) here or the actual technical logistics, but hopefully you get the idea!)  It would also help to “inform provision of suitable alternatives” as mentioned above.

However, provision of alternative resources must still be accessible by students or further alternatives provided – as mentioned in my last post: one person’s strategy may be another’s barrier.

One of the issues with UK accessibilty legislation is that there is no technical definition of what constitutes an accessible e-learning resource or a “reasonable adjustment” as described in SENDA (Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, 2001).  Guidelines such as those developed by W3C WAI (World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative) have been accepted as de facto standards but they are not designed for e-learning and the UK government has not stipulated that they must be used.  Most developers do so voluntarily.  One of the main disadvantages is with the lack of technical definition is that developers can often feel as though they are “feeling their way” with accessibility.  On the other hand, there are distinct advantages.  By not defining a technical definition of what constitutes accessibility, developers are given free rein to produce solutions which, whilst perhaps not strictly conformant to the various guidelines, are actually accessible.  Also, innovation is allowed to flourish – such as in the form of the new Web 2.0 technologies – and give rise to new ways of working and approaching accessibility and learning.  Again it is the one size fits all versus holistic approach, but rather than seeing them as conflicting approaches, they should be considered as complementary.

So what approach needs to be taken to ensure that one is legally compliant?  The answer is easy: work alongside current guidelines and provide equivalent alternative resources, where necessary.  In other words, do as much of the generic accessibility as you can (such as making sure your HTML (HyperText Markup Language) validates) and provide alternatives as necessary, where this isn’t possible (e.g. provide a transcript of a podcasted lecture for students with auditory impairments or without access to speakers).  Straightforward in theory, but in practice…?

One Person’s Strategy is Another’s Barrier

Posted on by

Accessibility is very personal – what works for one person may not work for another.  The “one size fits all” approach has been tried and although admirable in its intentions has often proved difficult to implement.

The W3C WCAG (World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Guidelines) v 1.0 tried a technical approach to accessibility by setting out a number of accessibility guidelines, which could be automatically tested by online validators such as Bobby. Whilst this automatic validation can validate the HTML code, many of guidelines require human input and common sense.  For example, whilst an automated accessibility validator can check that an image has an alt text tag, it cannot check that the tag actually makes sense.  People who don’t use images, such as those using mobile technologies or visually impaired people still need to know whether an image is important to the content or not.  An image with an alt tag of “image01.jpg” gives no information to website users, whilst an alt tag of “Photograph of Winston Churchill” would not only aid navigation through a web page, but it would also provide information that the image does not provide additional information to the text, so the user knows they are not missing out on anything.  As well as this, users could hover a mouse over the image to see the alt text.  This could be useful where an image doesn’t have a text caption underneath.

Difficulties with adhering to such guidelines and standards can cause barriers for people because content developers may then try to produce content to the lowest common denominator, i.e. text only.  Although text can be easily accessed by people using screen readers, it can be difficult for people with dyslexia to read and is visually unappealing.  So in this case, whilst the content is accessible for people using screen readers, it is less accessible for people with dyslexia.

Despite the drawbacks, this standardisation (“one size fits all”) approach is important.  Without a set of guidelines, developers may not know where to begin with accessibility and may not approach the basics in the same way, thereby reducing interoperability with assistive and other technologies.

One way to complement the standards approach is to produce alternative but equivalent versions of content.  For example, transcripts can be provided for podcasts, text heavy content can be offered as with animations or images or in simple language for people with learning disabilities or language learners.  This holistic approach has been proposed by Kelly, Phipps, and Howell in Implementing a Holistic Approach to e-Learning Accessibility.  This approach also takes student learning styles and pedagogy into account as well as technical and usablity issues.

Standards and guidelines are important but they need to be used with common sense and in combination with other approaches. Standards and guidelines can help with the physical presentation of the content, whilst holistic and other approaches can help the user to interact and use that content in the format best suited to their needs.

Personalisation – Many Things to Many People?

Posted on by

I finally got around to reading Designing for Learning: The Proceedings of Theme 1 of the JISC Online Conference – Innovating e-Learning 2006 (PDF Format, 788Kb) after several aborted attempts.  The paper I found most interesting was Diana Laurillard’s keynote, which got me thinking about personalisation of e-learning systems and resources. 

Laurillard talks about several different levels of personalisation:

* “…a pre-test to determine the level at which a learner might begin a learning design, or the chance to select the vocabulary set with which a language learner would like to work, or the opportunity to choose the order in which topics are confronted…”

* “…a negotiated learning contract that specifies the content topics, the prior learning and intended acheivement levels…”

* “…[an] adaptive system vision, in which opportunities are personalised for the learning, based on a diagnosis of their [learners’] needs.” (From Laurillard, D. Keynote: Learning Design Futures – What are our Ambitions? in Minsull, G. & Mole J (eds) (2007), Designing for Learning, The Proceedings of Theme 1 of the JISC Online Conference: Innovating e-Learning 2006, p10. JISC. Accessed 12/09/07).

There are no doubt other levels, but what struck me was that the idea that personalisation can mean different things to different people, depending on their requirements and viewpoint.  So, when two people talk about the personalisation of e-learning resources and systems, they may be envisaging completely different processes and interactions from each other.

To me, personalisation means accessible e-learning systems and resources that adapt themselves based on the learner’s learning needs and preferences.  So, for example, a visually impaired learner is offered alternative learning resources that have little or no visual element.  Or the e-learning system automatically changes the font colour and background colour based on a the preferences already set up by a dyslexic learner. However, these preferences and requirements for alternative resources are not just beneficial for learners with disabilities.  They are beneficial for all learners who may have learning, technology, or environmental requirements which differ from the norm (if indeed such a thing exists).  For example, a learner without access to an mobile audio device, such as an MP3 player, may prefer to print off the transcript of a podcast in order to read it on the bus.

The course designer may well have a completely different view of personalisation, whereby the e-learning system automatically presents the apropriate starting point on a course based on the learner’s level of competency and prior knowledge.  This could be established by online (or offline) pre-tests, tutor-entered proof of competency, such as certificated evidence of experience or skills, or other means of verification.  A learner who exceeds the initial competency requirements could be started a higher level of the course with options to view and/or take part in previous lower levels.

Both of these views of personalisation relate to Laurillard’s “adaptive system” approach, whereby the e-learning system “pushes” out resources or automatically places the learner at a particular level of a course, based on the learner’s needs and preferences.

However, there is another less formal approach to personalisation, which I’ve termed the “active approach” (although I’m sure there must be an official term for this out there), whereby the learner chooses what tools they want to use and/or the level at which they want to start the course.  In this approach, information and learning is “pulled” from the content managing system using the tools and approach that the learner prefers.  For example, a student may prefer to input all her assignment dates into a mobile device which she carries with her at all times, rather than input them onto the institution’s approved calendaring system, which she only accesses when she is on site. 

Although there does not seem to be much difference between the “adaptive” and “active” approaches, the details are quite subtle.  For example, in an adaptive approach, an institution’s system could offer a specific text-to-speech reader for all students to choose, should they wish, which is supported by institution’s IT (Information Technology) department.  However, in the active approach, the learner uses the text-to-speech reader they prefer to use.  Also, the active approach allows a learner to choose where they want to start learning based on their interests or prior learning. For example, a biology student with an interest in or prior knowledge of plants may want to start with a module on plant biology before moving to animal biology in order to orientate himself and gain confidence.  Laurillard’s idea of a “negotiated learning contract that specifies the content topics, the prior learning and intended acheivement levels” will help the learner to identify where they want to start learning.

Although there is a need for an adaptive approach to personalisation, there is also a complementary need for an active approach, which can empower learners, help hone their learning, and help them to gain confidence by consolidating any prior knowledge.

Personalisation does mean different things to different people – from a system which adapts itself to present content in the way the learner requires to learners actively choosing where they want to begin their learning.  Perhaps personalisation is all these things at the same time and it’s only that actual viewpoint that makes the difference.

Scribd: A multi-format document repository

Posted on by

I’ve just come across Scribd – a web-based repository, which allows anyone to upload their documents for free.  I suppose it’s a bit like YouTube for documents, but the great thing about it is that you get several formats for the price of one.

All it needs is a document in a Word, PFD, text, PowerPoint, Excel, PostScript or LIT format, which it will then display in a web browser using Scribd’s custom Flash player (seems to be Macromedia’s FlashPaper format).  The clever part is that Scribd will then automatically convert your document into a PDF, Word, and Text file – and MP3 format!  The application obviously uses some sort of text-to-speech software, but the great thing about Scribd is that it automatically provides so many formats from just one upload.

The only drawback I’ve found so far is that I can’t seem to tab through to the links for the alternative versions, but the site was only launched last month, so perhaps they’ll fix that soon.  Oh – and it only works in IE.  It is available via Firefox and conversely, you can tab through to the download links but not actually see result inline.  Typical!  However, that aside, it’s a great idea – now all we need is something that automatically provide transcripts for podcasts, and something which will caption and describe videos.   I’m not even going to mention actually producing accessible content – that’s for another day!

Adding Value: Providing Transcripts for Podcasts

Posted on by

I’ve just listened to a podcast by EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information) on RSS/Podcast Basics.  As well as covering the basics of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds and podcasting, it also briefly touched on podcast accessibility.

Podcasting can consist of either audio or audio and voice (video).  Both Section 508 and the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) recommend that alternatives are available for auditory and visual content – e.g. a transcript for an audio podcast; captions and/or transcript (and possibly a description of the video, depending on its format) for a video podcast (this could take the form of a presentation with voice-over or an actual video).

Podcasts can be of particular value to people with visual disabilities or physical disabilities, and people who want to learn on the run, such as travelling into work on the bus, exercising, waiting for a train, etc.  However, including a transcript of a podcast, particularly in the educational environment, will not just benefit people with hearing impairments but it can also benefit all students. 

One example given in the EASI podcast was of lecturers making their lectures available as a podcast for students to download.  The presenter suggested that students would probably only want to listen to a podcasted lecture once (or twice, if they had a high boredom threshold) and that, as in a normal lecture room situation, the student would make notes as they went along.  However, if a transcript was provided of the podcast, the student could print it off (as well as listen to the podcast) and make notes in the margin.  The transcript and annotations could easily be carried around and used as a useful revision resource at exam time.

Another problem is that it’s not always easy to find one’s way around a podcast – there are no headings or marker points (although maybe this will come in time) as in a large document – so the listener is forced listen to the podcast all the way through in order to find the relevant bits.  Providing a transcript alongside the podcast allows for easy navigation, it can printed by a Braille machine, and allows for annotation by the student.

Although there are obviously the cost benefits of writing a transcript, providing an electronic resource in two different formats could greatly increase the value of that resource and will benefit a greater number of students.

BBC Jam – Last Chance to See…

Posted on by

BBC Jam is having to suspend its free online learning resources – see BBC Suspends Net Learning Project. These resources are aimed at children in the 5-14 age range and one of the main objectives was to try and make the resources as accessible as possible.

The developers have worked hard. The learning objects are engaging and there is a suite of accessibility preferences, which can be saved by the user and re-presented at log-in without having to set them up again. Preferences include:

* text to speech;
* facility to change text size and colour, and background colour;
* a set of standard text and colour combinations;
* subtitles/captions;
* and choice of language (English, Gaelic, Welsh).

Many of the learning resources have been developed in Flash, so there are a couple of sticky bits, but on the whole the concept seems to work quite well. One of the things I particularly liked was that the text to speech facility also worked in Welsh (however I couldn’t seem to get the text to be read out in Gaelic – but that could just have been me!).

There were also interesting plans to make certain core subjects available this year:

* for people with severe learning disabilities;
* people with visual impairments (audio described video);
* people with hearing impairments;
* in BSL (British Sign Language);
* and symbol supported resources.

So you’d better hurry if you want to take a look at one way in which accessibility preferences can be included in a learning environment, as the BBC Jam website is only available until 20th March 2007. I do hope this work is re-instated as it proves that learning resources can be engaging, interactive, and accessible.