Category Archives: accessibility

When 2D Electronic Learning Resources Just Aren’t Enough

Posted on by

Not much of the work we do here at the CETIS Accessibility SIG (Special Interest Group) involves cognitive disabilities – possibly because electronic resources tend to be vision-centric, so a lot of the focus is on making resources accessible to people with visual impairments.  So it was good to come across this YouTube video (thank you, Paul Hollins) made by Amanada Baggs, who has autism – entitled “In My Language“.

The first part of the video shows how she interacts with the environment around her, so there is no dialogue.  However, part way through she then explains how the language she uses to communicate and interact is not what other people would consider as “standard”.  Amanda uses assistive technology to voice her eloquent narrative and I found her comparison of communication methods very illuminating and thought-provoking.

A person’s way of interacting with their environment will obviously have a bearing on their preferred learning style and so we need to ensure that other (non-electronic) learning resources are also available for people who prefer to learn (and communicate) in a “non-standard” way.  This is part of the holistic approach to Accessibility, as outlined in Kelly and Phipp’s paper on “Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility“.

However, if non-electronic resources are available as alternatives to electronic resources, how can they be identified as such?  One suggestion is to include a pointer in the accessibility metadata of an electronic resource, which points to a location or further details about the non-electronic resource (there were rumours that this method could be included as part of the IMS or ISO Accessibility work). 

This pointer could also be used to identify other resources and experiences that simply aren’t available in the virtual world – such as sculptures, archaeological sites, etc – where the environment, the student’s reaction to the resource within that environment, and the use of more than just a limited set of the student’s senses are important to the whole learning experience.  A catering student will need to use their senses of taste and smell (and sight), when developing a signature dish.  An archaeology student will not feel the thrill of uncovering an artefact until they get out there and actually get their hands dirty. A history student may have a greater understanding of military strategy by visiting a battleground and experiencing the actual qualities of the terrain.  Therefore, although 2D electronic resources can provide a wealth of information and understanding, sometimes they just aren’t enough.

Jumping Through Hoops – Reasonable Adjustments for Exams

Posted on by

The DRC (Disability Rights Commission) are currently supporting a legal case brought about by a student, who claims that she was discriminated against when taking an online exam for a professional qualification.  The complaints include one about unreasonable demands for evidence of disability, and one about requests for reasonable accommodations.

Hoop 1: Prove Your Disability

The SENDA (Special Educational Needs and Disability Act) states that educational institutions must make reasonable adjustments for disabled students in order to avoid substantial disadvantage.  However, in order for those reasonable adjustments to be made in the exam room, many institutions need actual evidence of disability. For those students who are known to their educational institution, evidence may not necessarily mean a medical certificate, as a tutor’s or other adviser’s statement may be enough. 

However, in the legal case mentioned above, the professional body running the assessment had not actually met the student as most of her studies were completed electronically.  So in this case, actual medical proof was their only recourse to evidence of disability, before any special accommodations could be made.  Including a suite of preferences as part of the test software could have helped with some of the accommodations the student required and may even have avoided the need for the provision of evidence of her disability.

Hoop 2: Take the Test the Hard Way

In the legal case mentioned above, the student was not allowed to take her own laptop into the exam room nor was she allowed to use a screen reader to access the test, because the professional body felt that installation of software from outside their test suite could put the security of their test at risk.

In this case, both parties’ requests could be considered as reasonable – the student’s request for additional software in order to take the test and the testing body’s refusal on the grounds of security.  Security issues around assessment are a common fear.  If an exam body wants to keep the quality of its qualifications high, then security will be paramount.  But where does this leave the student who needs additional software in order to access the test?  In this case, the student was offered the services of a reader and extra time – it was not an ideal solution for her, but was one with which the testing body was happy.  This is probably not an isolated incident – there are no doubt many conflicts between what the student really needs to take an online test and with what the testing body feels comfortable about allowing the student to use.  Compromises are made, but perhaps it is the student who always ends up with the worst deal.

Levelling the Playing Field

So would it be worthwhile for test centres (and maybe other online test providers) to provide generic accommodations?  Offering a text reader or screen magnification software as part of the test software suite could remove the need for some students to provide evidence of their disability and could reduce the worry for exam bodies about compromising security. 

Screen readers, for example, are a common type of assistive technology and come in various shapes and sizes.  Although it would be impossible to provide screen readers to suit everyone’s needs, it might be possible to provide one cut-down or authoritative version simply to allow students to access online assessments, as long as the student was allowed to practise using the technology well in advance.  This could keep costs down and possibly improve a student’s interaction with the test software, if practice runs have been made available.

Availability of such technology would also depend on the type of test being undertaken but for online exams, where reading the questions aloud did not defeat the actual purpose of the question, providing access to even one type of assistive technology could go a long way to including rather than excluding people.  Of course, the questions would also need to be screen reader-friendly and alternatives to questions containing graphs or images may need to be offered, but providing accessible and/or alternative questions may benefit all students.

I’m not saying that one size should fit all.  Many disabled students will still need to use their own particular type of technology but including some common types of assistive technology in a test software suite could help level the playing field.  In an ideal world, students would be able to set their own preferences, use their own software and even have assessments based on their particular learning styles. 

Above all, it is imperative that exam bodies and educational institutions who provide online tests are clear about what is actually being tested (is it the student’s ability to interact with the test software or their knowledge and understanding of a particular subject?) and to ensure that any assessment clearly reflects that goal in a user-friendly and supportive manner.  After all, assessment in any form is usually stressful enough without having to jump through extra hoops.

Should alt text be used to paint a thousand words?

Posted on by

We’ve all been told that alt text is an essential part of web accessibility, but how much detail do we actually need to include and who should do it?

There’s been some discussion over on the DC-Accessibility JISCMail Discussion List (February 2007, “Not Accessible or Adaptable”) about a lot of issues, including whether alt text should always be added to an image. One contributor to the discussion gave a link to a slideshow of dance photographs, where:

“the author refused to label the images with text… his argument being that the photographers images capture and demonstrate an emotional experience, and that whilst text can perform the same expression, he’s not the person to annotate them.”

The photographs in question are various stills from dance rehearsals and performances.  There is no accompanying text of any kind, but most people would probably recognise that the people in the photos were involved in some sort of dance medium from the clothes being worn, the environment, and from the positions of the bodies.  However, unless one knows the language of dance or the context in which the dance is being performed, the photos may have no further meaning – and could therefore be inaccessible to some people.

This actually brings up several issues:

1. How can one describe an image that expresses emotion or abstract concepts?

2.  If such concepts can be described, who should be responsible (and have the capability) for doing so?

3.  Where does alt text fit into all this?

1. Describing Emotion and Abstract Concepts

So is it possible to extract emotional and abstract meanings and describe them for people who do not have a concept or understanding of such areas?  The Dayton Art Institute Access Art Website has attempted to do so.  For each artwork on the Access Art website, there is an image, a section on the artwork in context, comments by the Art Director (including an audio commentary) and a description of the artwork. Each section is no more than a couple of paragraphs. For example, the description of Frishmuth’s “Joy of the Waters” has attempted to put across abstract concepts such as the mood of the statue:

“The girl’s springing, energetic step, joyful expression, and animated hair create an exuberant mood and suggest that she may be a water sprite.” (Marianne Richter, Dayton Art Institute)

This helps make the artwork become more accessible for visually impaired people and for people who do not know the language of art. 

2. Responsibility for Describing Images

The people best qualified to describe a visual resource are probably the people who have decided it should be included in the first place.  For example, someone with archaeological experience is probably best placed to describe an image of a stone tool, whilst a geography tutor may be the most suitable person to describe a meteorological image from a satellite put onto the university’s VLE (Virtual Learning Environment).

The descriptions used will also differ depending on the image’s intended audience.  A museum generally has a wide public audience with many different levels of understanding and access requirements, whilst a Geography department may only have a small number of students at a fairly high level of understanding. 

So, unless the photographer in the quote above, is also versed in the language of dance, he is unlikely to be able to describe the dance photos he has taken.  Even if he were, he would also need to be aware of the level at which they needed to be pitched in terms of language, description, and audience. 

3. Use of alt Text

So where does alt text fit into all this?  The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) recommends providing:

“…a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via “alt”, “longdesc”,  or in element content)… For complex content (e.g., a chart) where the “alt” text does not provide a complete text equivalent, provide an additional description using, for example, “longdesc” with IMG or FRAME, a link inside an OBJECT element, or a description link.”

Therefore, alt text should be used for every image (even empty alt text should be used for spacers and decorative images), but it should only provide a brief text description of the image – the Guidelines on ALT Texts in IMG Elements recommends no more than 50 characters.  Longer descriptions of an image, such as those describing complex images, emotions, or abstract concepts, should not be included as alt text, but should either be attached as a separate link (perhaps using the longdesc or d-link elements) or added next to the image. 

Alt text can also be different for different audiences and purposes (see WebAIM’s Communicating the Purpose of the Graphic) and does not necessarily need to be completed by experts.  However, although the photos of the dancers should have had alt text, they may well have needed someone with a knowledge of dance to add it.  Basic alt text, such as “photo of dance students” could have been added by anyone but would there be any benefit to seeing roughly the same alt text added to over 80 images?  A choreographer would be capable of adding more informative alt text, such as stating the dance step or intention, e.g. “photo of a dancer in fifth position”, particularly where the intended audience was other dancers or dance students. 

Alt text is a requirement under the WCAG guidelines, but it shouldn’t be used to describe an image in a thousand words – these have to be written elsewhere.

Can You Really Have an Accessible Google Map?

Posted on by

Well, yes – according to Greg Kraus of LecShare Inc, in a presentation entitled “Creating Accessible Google Maps“, part of EASI’s (Equal Access to Software and Information) webinar series.  Kraus has developed some JavaScript code that calls the Google Maps API (Application Programming Interface), which he has generously made freely available to the accessiblity community.

This allows a Google map to be accessible in two ways:

1. Navigation - By creating form buttons and tying some JavaScript commands to them a Google map’s navigation can be made keyboard (and screen reader) accessible.  It allows the user to Zoom In/Out, have Normal/Satellite/Hybrid views and pan North, South, East and West.  Details on how to accomplish this are available from Making Google Maps Accessible (Part 1 – Controls).  (However, the actual maps themselves will not be screen reader accessible – only the controls).

2. Providing Accessible Data – Data, such as name, website, weather, etc, can be entered into an accessible form, which is stored in a database.  The data is then retrieved from the database via the scripting mechanism described in Making Google Maps Accessible (Part 2 – Accessible Data), and displayed both on the map on custom made pushpins and as an ordered list, which is accessible to screen readers.  Because the pushpins can be custom made, the font associated with the pushpins can also be made larger.

Although Google Maps only understand latitude and longitude co-ordinates, rather than actual addresses, Google does provide a publicly available API which will do the translation for you.  However, it should be noted that any information that shows terrain or streets will be inaccessible to screen reader users.  Nevertheless, descriptions could be added to the pushpins to describe their relationship with other features.

It was quite exciting to see attempts to make something as inaccessible as a map accessible and it’s great to see that Greg Klaus has made his work freely available to us all.

A Systems Approach Model to Web Accessibility

Posted on by

Paul Bohman, one of the original founders of WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind) gave a webinar on “Systems-Approach Models of Web Accessibility: Because Techniques Are Not Enough” last week.

As well as mentioning the usual “dos and don’ts” for web accessibility, he talked about how accessibility should be part of an organisation’s culture, in the same way that recycling is often seen as part of an organisation’s ethical commitment.  Most organisations in the UK (United Kingdom) have recycling strategies and policies (although there may be some legal encouragement here) and encourage staff to actively play their part.  In the same way, accessibility should be actively encouraged – from purchasing accessible equipment and software right through to ensuring that disabled people are actively encouraged to apply for jobs within the organisation.

Bohman stated that the web and e-learning now provides an historic opportunity for disabled people to access information independently for the first time ever.  Yet, if web resources are designed to be unfriendly or inaccessible, then this opportunity is wasted.

Web accessibility is not just about making sure that web developers and content creators follow the W3C WAI (World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative) specifications and guidelines. It also needs to involve people and services outside of an organisation’s actual main web site.  Of course, there may be additional costs but much of these costs can reduced by ensuring that accessibility is considered from the very beginning.  Particular parts of an organisation’s system mentioned by Bohman include:

* Web Services – Ensuring that any web services accessed as part of the web site or e-learning system are accessible.

* Intranet – An organisation’s public web site may be accessible but its private intranet also needs to be accessible to both employees and students alike.  For example, if the intranet portal links through to a person’s payroll or financial details, these need to be accessible. It is easier and cheaper to include accessibility right from the start.

* Libraries - Although a library may not have any influence over which journals are available electronically, details should be kept up-to-date on the library’s (accessible!) database.

* Learning Management Systems – Although VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) developers, such as BlackBoard, have made significant efforts to make the student side accessible, work is still required to ensure that the tutor side is also as accessible.  Most tutors are expected to create electronic resources for their students but generally they are not specialists in accessibility.  Prompts should be available which encourage accessible authoring of resources.

* Future Proofing – Are students on computer or teaching courses actually taught how to make systems and content accessible?

* Purchasing – In the US (United States), Section 508 requires that the most accessible product of its type is purchased by federal organisations.  Most purchasing departments therefore are well aware of the VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template), which explains where a product is and is not accessible.  If the question of accessibility is not raised when purchasing a product, then the likelihood of it actually being accessible will be fairly slim.  Therefore, someone using assistive technologies, such as a screen reader, will only be able to work or learn in that organisation for as long as the actual systems and products used by that organisation are accessible.

* Recruitment – Although it is fairly easy and cheap to include a requirement for accessibility knowledge in a job advertisement or job description, actually testing a potential candidate’s knowledge can be take time.

* Training – It is not acceptable for an organisation to state that they have an interest in accessibility, it needs to be supported by relevant training at a relevant level across departments.  For example, the accessibility training received by a web developer will be different to that received by a purchaser.  Although there may be substantial upfront costs, it should be on-going and take whatever form is necessary.

In order for every part of the system to be effectively involved in accessibility, it is imperative that an organisation’s leadership is committed to it and that adequate budgets are provided. 

Bohman ended the webinar by stating that implementing accessibility benefits everyone because everyone has the potential to require accessible systems at some point.

It was interesting to hear accessibility likened to the recyling strategies and policies that many organisations have adopted.  These seem to be quite successful so perhaps a similar approach could be taken for ensuring that accessibility is seen as part of an organisation’s ethos.

One comment made by one of the moderators during the presentation, which I found quite interesting, was that the use of wireless devices may actually do more for accessibility than accessibility advocates have managed to achieve.  Perhaps it doesn’t matter how or why accessibility is achieved, as long as it is achieved!

NIIMLE Presentation – Accessible and Engaging?

Posted on by

I’ve just seen the presentation from NIIMLE (Northern Ireland Integrated Managed Learning Environment), which describes how what it does and how it can benefit students.

The great thing about the actual presentation is that it has tried to be both engaging and accessible. There are short paragraphs of text in the presentation, which are also spoken out loud, whilst information itself is presented very clearly and is supported by an engaging animation and colour scheme.

The NIIMLE portal also seems to have some form of personalisation and the NIIMLE development team have also attempted to incorporate the WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) guidelines.

So full marks to the NIIMLE Team for an accessible and engaging presentation.

WAI-ARIA Roadmap Announced

Posted on by

The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) have just announced the latest addition to their accessibility stable – the ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) Roadmap, which will make dynamic web content accessible.

The Roadmap is essentially a suite of documents made up of:

* the WAI-ARIA Roadmap itself – addresses the accessibility of dynamic Web content by describing “the technologies to map controls, AJAX live regions, and events to accessibility APIs, including custom controls used for Rich Internet Applications”. It also “outlines new navigation techniques to mark common Web structures such as menus, primary content, secondary content, banner information and other types of Web structures”, which can improve accessibility.

* Roles for Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA Roles) – provides a means of identifying roles in dynamic web content, in order to improve interoperability with assistive technologies.

* States and Properties Module for Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA States) – enables the behaviour of an element to be included in XML (eXtensible Mark-up Language), which can then be used in conjunction with assistive technologies or to dynamically render content via different style sheets.

Further information is available from the press release.

EU DIADEM Project Aims to Personalise Web Experience

Posted on by

The DIADEM (Delivering Inclusive Access for Disabled and Elderly Members of the community) Project has just received European funding to develop technology to help elderly people and people with cognitive disabilities use the internet.

One of its main objectives will be to develop software which monitors how a user interacts with web based forms and which then automatically personalises the computer interface accordingly.

It is a joint project between Brunel University, the Norwegian National Computer Centre (Norsk Regnesentral), and several IT suppliers – Bluegarden (Norway) and MORE (Norway) – and government services – CSI-Piemonte (Italy), Sheffield City Council, and Citta di Torino (Italy).

Further information is available from the press release and from the DIADEM Project website.

ISO and Dublin Core Accessibility Metadata Work

Posted on by

Over the past year or so, representatives from the accessibility specifications community have been working toward combining their efforts on accessibility preferences (learner information) and resource characteristics (metadata) in one standard – the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission) JTC1 (Joint Technical Committee 1) SC36 (SubCommittee 36) Individualized Adaptability and Accessibility in E-learning, Education and Training – likely to be released over the next 12 months.

The DC (Dublin Core) Accessibility Working Group are now looking at adapting the ISO standard so that it can be expressed in a compatible way with other DC metadata – see AccessForAll Application Profile for a draft model.

The next Dublin Core Conference takes place in Manzanillo, Mexico from 3rd to 6th October 2006.  One of the sessions, which is also likely to be available for remote participants, will discuss the AccessForAll Application Profile (Thursday, 5th October, 22:30 UK, 16:30 Mexico).  If you are interested in taking part, further details are available from the DC Accessibility JISCMail List.

The next phase of the ISO work will be to determine how non-digital resources can be described in a digital way.  For example, a student studying art history could have the option of viewing an image digitally (on-line), or as a non-digital resource, such as a tactile image or sculpture, etc.  Therefore, location and type of a non-digital resource, etc may be described as part of a digital resource’s metadata.

This work is likely to be challenging but digital resources are not suitable for everyone nor for every subject.  If non-digital resources can be described, then this could open up a greater number of resources more suited to different learning styles and needs.