“…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.

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 3^rd to 6^th October 2006.  One of the sessions, which is also likely to be available for remote participants, will discuss the AccessForAll Application Profile (Thursday, 5^th 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.