Web Accessibility: Limitations Of Conventional Approaches

1. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/accessibility-summit-2006-11/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/accessibility-summit-2006-11/ Web Accessibility: Limitations Of Conventional Approaches Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, Blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Resources bookmarked with 'accessibility-summit-2006-11' tag UKOLN is supported by: This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

2. Contents • Strengths of WAI Approach • High profile • Internationally recognised • Limitations • WAI Model • WCAG • Universal or contextual solutions • Accessibility, usability, interoperability • WCAG can limits what we can do • Uncertain future

3. Background: W3C WAI & WCAG • W3C (World Wide Web Consortium): • Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards • WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative): • W3C group responsible for developing guidelines which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible • WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines): • One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG provides advice of accessibility on Web content (e.g. HTML pages) • Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools (ATAG) WAI Approach

4. WAI Strengths • WAI work: • Provides valuable guidelines for helping to make Web sites more accessible • Widely recognised • Widely adopted • Support by various tools: • WebXact (Bobby) • Cynthia Says • … WAI Approach

5. The WAI Model • The WAI model for Web accessibility is based on three components: • Content • Authoring Tools • Browsers • Assumption: do three right  universal accessibility • But: • We have no control over browsers & authoring tools • The browsers and authoring tools aren't great • The content guidelines are flawed • Is universal accessibility really possible? WAI Approach

6. Which reflects your views most closely? Interpretation of WAI WCAG • How do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images; HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …): • Mandatory, with following characteristics: • Clearly defined rules Objective • Checking mostly objective • Penalties for non-compliance • Similar to checking that HTML complies with the standard • Advisory, with following characteristics: • Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in context • It's about providing useful, usable resources • It's contextual • Checking mostly subjective • It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed WAI Approach BK

7. Limitations of the WAI Model Limitations • WAI approach has shortcomings: • WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents • …and conformant users! • WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C formats; must use latest versions; …") • Has a Web-only view of the world: • What about other IT solutions? • What about blended (real world) solutions? • Has a belief in a single universal solution: • But isn't accessibility a very complex issue • Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to be developed at the first attempt?

8. Diversity - Content Alternatives • WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites: • Here’s the train timetable – I want the information and I want it now • This is reasonable and desirable • But is this approach always relevant to e-learning: • Here’s something – you must interpret it (and being wrong can be part of the learning process) • Or culture: • Here’s the Mona Lisa – you decide why she is smiling

9. Argument: • We need: firstly (A) food and then (B) shelter. Afterwards we want (C) soft furnishing • Can apply “Jordan’s Pleasure Principle” to informational content: • We want information, but we also want it provided in a pleasurable way C B A Jordan’s Pleasure Principle Alternatives • Even for informational resources, we may not always choose to make information readily accessible • “Super Calli Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious!” • Breaks draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines on “Content must be understandable” • But brings a smile to many (but not all)

10. Usability & Interoperability • What about: • Usability • Interoperability http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp • Example: • Long, application-specific URLs can cause accessibility/usability and interoperability problems • Addition Problems: • We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users) • We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly) • We don’t need to address usability The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

11. Reflection On The Past • WAI: • Political success, but lack of rigourous examination of its shortcomings • Usage: • WAI can be used as a control mechanism (you can’t use x) even if can provide valuable user benefits • Context: • Assumption about universal solutions (therefore no debate) which doesn’t reflect reality

12. Reflection On The Present • BSI PAS 78: • Provides a context to use of WAI • Acknowledges there may be solutions which break WAI guidelines: • Flash & PDF can provide useful services and accessibility issues can be addressed • Neutral on technologies • Need to: • Determine the underlying principles • Look to build on this for the future

13. The Future – WCAG 2.0? • WCAG 2.0: • Long time in development • Joe Clarke’s “To Hell With WCAG 2.0” posting unleashed much debate • Useful summaries from The Pickardsand @Media 2006 session • Issues: • It’s confusing • It’s too liberal • It’s too tech--centric • ..

14. Steven Downes’ Blog • Posting, May 2006 • Well known for his writing on accessibility, Joe Clark slams WCAG 2.0. … "The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals for meetings." And the result, writes Clark, is predictable: a confused, convoluted and dysfunctional set of standards. • Response (former WAI WG member): • Oh, I think it's worse than Joe writes. As I see it, the WCAG 2.0 accomplishes two things. First, it makes it less likely that sites will ever really be accessible to persons with disabilities. Second, it makes the price of admission for an ostensibly accessible site (i.e. one that "meets" the guidelines) quite high.

15. Conclusions • To conclude: • WAI has been a political success • But the future seems uncertain • Need to: • Be open about limitations and our experiences • Be user-focussed (?) • Build an underlying model • Seek consensus • A roadmap for the future Conclusions Any Questions?