1 / 19

Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World

This paper discusses the limitations of the WAI model and WCAG guidelines in addressing the diversity of users, user environments, and real-world technical and cultural environments. It also explores the difficulties faced in achieving WCAG conformance and the usability issues associated with accessibility.

michelleg
Download Presentation

Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World Co-authors: David Sloan, University of Dundee Lawrie Phipps, TechDis Helen Petrie & Fraser Hamilton, City University Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK Email B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk UKOLN is supported by:

  2. Background To The Paper • This paper: • Based on experiences of promoting & supporting best practices for Web accessibility within the UK higher & further education (HE/FE) & cultural heritage communities • Five authors from four HE organisations in the UK (including 2 national advisory services) Web developer since 1993 & adviser to UK HE/FE & cultural heritage communities Senior researcher at City University Consultant and researcher in inclusive design and accessibility, University of Dundee Senior adviser at TechDis – a national advisory service to HE/FE Professor at City University with interests in usability & accessibility

  3. The WAI Model • WAI has been tremendously successful in raising awareness of Web accessibility and providing guidelines to achieve this. • WAI guidelines are based on: • WCAG (Web Content …) • ATAG (Authoring Tools ..) • UAAG (User Agents …) • The model is simple to grasp. But is this model appropriate for the future? Does the model: • Reflect the diversity of users & user environments • Reflect the diversity of Web usage • Reflect real-world technical environment and developments • Reflect real-world political and cultural environments

  4. Limitations Of The Model • This model: • Requires all three components to be implemented in order for the WAI vision to be achieved • Is of limited use to end users who have no control over browser or authoring tools developments • Is confusing – as many think WCAG is WAI • How does this model address: • Delays in full conformance? (We're still waiting for "until user agents …" clause to be resolved) • Real-world reluctance to deploy new software (issues of inertia, testing, costs, …) • Real world complexities Is there a plan B in case this model fails to ever take off? Is it desirable to base legal requirements on an unproven theoretical framework?

  5. WCAG Conformance • Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines. Several surveys carried out using automated tools (which gives upper limit on accessibility) • DRC report: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based on 1,000 Web sites • UK Museums report: 42% A, 3% AA conformance based on 124 Web sites • UK Universities surveys (2002, 04): 43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites • Implications • These low conformance levels can indicate: • Organisations don't care • Guidelines are difficult to implement • Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, … DRC – Disability Rights Commission, independent body legislated to stop discrimination and promote equality of opportunity of disabled people.

  6. WCAG Difficulties • Certain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns: • 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ... • Promotes own technologies • Appears to ignore major improvements in accessibility of non-W3C formats • 11.1 … and use the latest versions when supported • Goes against project management guidelines • Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A! • 3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars • Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by browsers – this is an interoperability issue (e.g. W4A 2005 conf. home page)

  7. Proprietary Formats • WCAG P2 requires use of W3C formats • Thoughts: • Reflects the idealism of the Web community in late 1990s • The conveyor belt of great W3C formats is slowing down • Software vendors are responding to WAI’s initiatives (formats, OS developments, …) • Developments in non-Web areas (mobile phones, …) & integration with real-world (e.g. blended learning, …) • Users care about the outcomes, not the way in which the outcomes are provided Thought: Could this requirement be regarded as anti-competitive if taken to, say, EU court?

  8. DRC survey also carried out usability testing: • Exemplar accessible Web sites did not comply with WCAG guidelines (WCAG A) • WCAG compliant sites (according to tools) were not accessible or usable • DDA requires users to be able to access & use services The subjectivity of usability guidelines seems to be recognised "I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say" Jakob Neilson DDA – UK's Disability Discrimination Act Usability Issues (1) • "WCAG provides the highway code for accessibility on the information superhighway" • "Fine – but what if the accelerator and brake pedals differ on every car. I'll still crash!"

  9. Accessibility Usability Usability Accessibility Accessibility Usability Usability Issues (2) • What is the relationship between usability & accessibility? Accessibility Usability

  10. Confusion • SiteMorse’s automated accessibility survey of UK disability organisations’ Web sites generated heated debate • SiteMorse: Low WCAG conformance found: • Response: doesn’t matter, manual testing gives OK results • What do such comments say about disability organisations’ views of WCAG ? Note that the RNIB actively promote WCAG guidelines – and also promote use of accessible Flash, without flagging any inconsistencies. Organisations may publicly support WCAG whilst rejecting (parts of) it.

  11. Nitpicking? • “This is just nit-picking! WCAG is valuable – don’t knock it!” • WCAG is valuable, but we need to: • Build a robust framework for the future • Ensure clarity and avoid ambiguities to avoid different interpretations • Reflect on experiences gained since 1999 • Avoid dangers of inappropriate case law being set Nightmare Scenario Case taken to court in UK. Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies. Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being diminished.

  12. This approach reflects current UK emphasis on blended learning(rather than e-learning) Holistic Approach • Kelly, Phipps & Swift1 have argued for a holistic framework for e-learning accessibility • This framework: • Focusses on the needs of the learner • Requires accessible learning outcomes, not necessarily e-learning resources 1 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3

  13. Legal Issues • UK legislation requires organisations to take "reasonable steps" to ensure disabled people do not face unjustified discrimination. • This approach: • Is technology-neutral • Is both forwards-looking and backwards-compatible • Acknowledges differences across providers of services • Doesn’t differentiate between real-world and online accessibility (or between Web and other IT accessibility) • Avoids change-control difficulties The approach outlined in this paper appears to fit in well with UK legislation

  14. Need For Engineers • The Web and the notion of universal accessibility was initially build on a great vision • But as: • The Web gets more complex • Real world complexities become apparent • Alternative approaches emerge • We learn from user experiences • we argue the need for an engineering approach rather than a visionary one: • Robust solutions • Fail-safe • Reflect user experiences rather than ideologies

  15. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it" • Addressing writing style has attractions, but: • Applies a single dimension (ease of understanding) to a much richer area (learning, culture, …) • Liable to undermine core accessibility issues • Hostage to fortune – "They're banning Shakespeare" • Makes divisions between real world and Web Similar concerns have been raised by Joe Clark, AListApart WAI, WCAG 2.0 • What about WCAG 2.0? • Modularity • Uncertainty of the broader context • Is is tolerant of non-W3C formats? • Why address writing style? (this is for real world) • Complexity and relationship with WCAG 1.0

  16. External factors: Institutional issues (funds, expertise, policies, security…) Accessibility guidelines should be usable in wider context External factors: Legal issues; cultural factors; … This approach embraces relativism and contextrather than the current absolute approach Accessibility In Context • A framework is being developed which places accessibility & usability within a wider context: • The context • A range of policies • A compliance regime Digital Library Programme Context Purpose Sector Funding Resources Research … Policies Standards Accessibility/Usability Privacy Finance … Compliance External Self-assessment Penalties Learning Broken

  17. Links To W3C Approaches • This approach has parallels with W3C approaches: • Providing a framework which co-exists with society’s policies rather than seeking to change them cf. content filtering (PICS), privacy (P3P), … • Evolution from grandiose standards to more realistic ones (cf. P3P, HTML+, …) • Evolution from monolithic standards to more modular ones (cf. XML, HTML, …) • Recognition that W3C shouldn’t seek to do everything Web-related • Implications: • WAI guidelines should be modular & usable in a wider context • Need to clarify what WAI does & doesn’t do

  18. Conclusions • To conclude: • Importance of Web accessibility widely accepted • But: • WCAG P2 & P3 guidelines aren’t working (cf. disability organisations, W3C members, W4A, …) • Some guidelines are flawed • Usability issues are being lost • User focus on WCAG conformance rather than providing usable & accessible resources • World has moved on since 1999 • Need for: • Modularity • Engineering, not ideology

  19. Questions • Questions are welcome

More Related