Presentations ranged from an overview of the accessibility standards work being done across the globe by Alex Li (Microsoft) to the development of accessible widgets by Elaine Pearson and her team at Teesside University.

Several of the presenters talked about their ongoing work in accessibility specifications and have asked for feedback from the community. So if you would like be involved in helping to shape these developments, people working on the following specifications would really appreciate your feedback:

* Standardisation Mandate M/376 (Phase 2) – Dave Sawdon from TRE Limited described how this work will create European accessibility requirements for the public procurement of products and services in the ICT domain (similar to the American VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template), which was introduced by Ken Salaets of the Information Technology Industry Council). The development team are particularly looking for public procurement officials to help define this standard.
* Access For All v.3.0 – works on the premise that personalisation preferences need to be machine readable, so it uses metadata to describe these personal needs and preferences. Andy Heath and the specification development team at IMS would like people to download it, try it out, implement it, check it works, and provide feedback.
* BS 8878:2010 Web accessibility. Code of practice – Jonathan Hassell, BBC, talked us through the background and purpose the recent web accessibility Code of Practice and Brian Kelly, UKOLN presented BS 8878 in the context of an holistic approach to accessibility. However, whilst it is now available for public use, user testing of the Code of Practice can only really be done in the field, so please join the community of practice and provide feedback on your experiences of implementing BS 8878.
* Mobile Applications Accessibility Standard – This standard, proposed by Yacoob Woozer of the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions), is still very much at the drawing board stage, with the focus on mobile applications rather than on creating websites that can viewed on different devices. However, suggesstions on what to include in the standard would be welcome.

Several of the presentations focussed on the work of specific standards bodies – David Fatscher from BSI gave us an overview of BSI; the various ISO standards which feature accessibility elements were introduced by Jim Carter from the University of Saskatchewan; and Shadi Abou-Zahra of W3C talked about the WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) guidelines.

And finally, I am very much appreciative of the work that the BSI staff and Andy Heath put into making this event such a success. It was it was a great opportunity for the standards and education sectors to get together and I hope that some lasting collaborations have been forged.

JISC describes AccessApps in their news story as “a collection of open source and freeware portable applications – all running from a USB stick and designed to give learners the tools they need to experience learning in the way that suits
them, when they need it”.

It was great to see how customisable the toolset can be and for those of you who couldn’t make it, I’m just in the process of writing up my notes from last week’s meeting. They should be ready in the next day or so.

Congratulations to Craig and the AccessApps team!

This standard integrates the IMS ACCLIP (Accessibility for Learner Information Package) and IMS ACCMD (AccessForAll Meta-data Specifications) into a single multi-part standard.

The first three parts are now available (cost is around £65 each) and consist of:

* ISO/IEC 24751-1:2008 Individualized Adaptability and Accessibility in E-learning, Education and Training Part 1: Framework and Reference Model.
Part 1 of the multi-part standard. It lays out the scope and defines the reference model for Parts 1 and 2 below.

* ISO/IEC 24751-2:2008 Individualized Adaptability and Accessibility in E-learning, Education and Training Part 2: “Access For All” Personal Needs and Preferences for Digital Delivery.
Part 2 of the multi-part standard. It covers the IMS ACCLIP Specification and defines accessibility needs and preferences, which can then be matched to resources (as defined in Part 3 below).

* ISO/IEC 24751-3:2008, Individualized Adaptability and Accessibility in E-learning, Education and Training Part 3: “Access For All” Digital Resource Description.
Part 3 of the multi-part standard. It covers the IMS ACCMD Specification and defines the accessibility meta-data that expresses a resource’s ability to match the needs and preferences of a user (as defined in Part 2 above).

A further four parts have been given “New Project” status and will cover non-digital learning resources and physical spaces.  They have a target publication date of December 2010.

Part 8 of the multipart standard will describe how language and learning preferences will be referenced and is expected to be published by the end of 2009.

“…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…?

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.