Week 15 Activity 4.2 - WAI-ARIA Technical Issues

Write notes in your blog about the challenges that you face in creating accessible resources in a technical environment that is frequently changing. What strategies have you used to cope with this?

One of the most common complaints about accessibility guidelines seems to be that they are difficult to understand. The Introduction to WAI-ARIA by Gez Lemon (2008) gives quite a useful overview of the WAI-ARIA in relatively non-technical terms, and for me was much easier to follow than the guidelines on the W3C WAI website itself.

I think, from my own point of view, with a technical environment that is always changing and developing the main problem might be that guidelines tend to be a reactionary measure. There is a decision to be made about whether to become early adopters of these innovative new technologies or wait until they have been standardised.

The only real strategy to adopt is to keep up to date with developments, through the developers of the new technologies, agencies like the W3C and so on. In my opinion that is a general strategy to be adopted as part of continuing professional development for anyone working in a constantly changing environment such as ICT's and does not only apply to accessibility.

Week 15 Activity 2 - Mobile Learning

Notes on Jisc TechDIS guide to M-Learning and Accessibility.

Mobile learning (m-learning) takes all of the features and benefits of e-learning and makes them portable such as using a PDA, MP3 player, mobile phone or other device.

The portability of m-learning makes them more accessible to people at more times and palces.

The devices are often less expensive than PCs and Laptops and more likely to be affordable.

Mobile devices are personal and private to use and have fewer self-image issues for disabled students.

In addition they can be used as :

• Recording tools - sound (dictaphone, PDA), images (mobile phone, PDA, MMS), text (handwriting recognition, on screen keyboards)
• Planning Tools - PDAs with built in calendars and reminders
• Reading tools - alternative media
• Writing tools - word prediction, spell checking
• Communication - SMS, MMS, Email

"The interface limitations of mobile technologies poses potential accessibility problems for some users but when weighing up the value added for learners it is important to consider the alternative learning experience." (Jisc TechDIS, undated)

Specific student groups who may be disadvantaged by the use of m-learning are :

• Blind and Visually imparied students due to the small screen size and limited customisation options.
• Motor impaired students may struggle with the size of mobile devices finding them fiddly

"Add value wherever possible – it is not possible to add equal value all the time so be prepared to add value differently to different groups at different times. There is never a “one size fits all” solution. "(Jisc TechDIS, undated)

Week 15 Activity 1.3 - Accssible Rich Internet Applications RIAs

Carry out an internet search to see which (if any) web browsers support WAI-ARIA. What do think might be the difficulties of achieving widespread adoption of accessible Web 2.0?

The recently release Firefox version 3.0 supports the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines for RIAs. Internet explorer 8 (currently in beta) and the forthcoming new releases of the Opera and Webkit browsers will also be compliant to ARIA guidelines.

One thing for developers to bear in mind with the RIAs is that they are cross browser compatible. Just as Cascadeing Style Sheet (CSS) rules are not interpreted the same way in Firefox as they are in Internet Explorer similar problems might occur with RIAs.

Week 15 Activity 1.2 - Positive Aspects of Web 2.0

Identify three examples of positive aspects of Web 2.0 tools or developments. Use your own experience or carry out a web search.

1. Connectedness
Web 2.0 social software enables people who are geographically distant from one another opportunities to connect, chat and share. This has benefits for many student groups for example those who are studying at distance to help overcome isolation or those on campus based courses who have other commitments outside of lectures such as family or work. From an accessibility point of view the connectedness offered by tools such as twitter, plurk, facebook, and other social software means that students can participate with other students in their group without having to travel to meetings or lectures, which might be difficult for a variety of reasons. In addition, the nature of social software is such that the network of contacts can grow through relationships with others. These connections may outlast the duration of the course and continue to be a source of support.

2. Sharing
Web 2.0 applications such as social bookmarking where people store interesting links online and organise them by keyword tags are useful for research because of the organic nature in which your research can be influenced by the research of others. Someone who has bookmarked some of the same items as a student may also have other useful resources stored which the student may never have come across by themselves. Folksonomy may also offer a useful way for students with learning disabilities organise their online research.

3. User Generated Content
Web 2.0 applications have made it easier for website users to contribute to content. The ease in which materials can be published on a variety of web 2.0 platforms affords us the opportunity to create, store and share niche content which can help to address different learning styles, learning difficulties or other issues regarding disabled learners.

Despite all of the above benefits many web 2.0 applications, due to the nature of the programming technology, will remain largely inaccessible for some users particularly those who are visually impaired.

Week 14 Activity 1.1 - Accessible Examinations

The students in my context are in secondary school, so are studying GCSE's and A-Levels in the main. In these scenarios then the assessment (exams) are very much core to the course, although continuous assessment forms a percentage of the final grades in many courses.

In a secondary education context assessment is regulated by the exam board so decisions on accessibility arrangements will be made by them. AQA is one of the main exam boards used so I have visited their website to find out about adjustments that can be made for disabled students. The types of adjustments that are allowed are determined for each subject on an individual basis and are outlined in course specification documents, however they must be arranged in advance and approved by the exam board. There are also guidelines on ensuring accessible assessment environments for exam invigilators e.g. time allowances, supervised rest breaks and giving reminders on time remaining, use of assistants etc.

It seems that AQA have processes for reasonable adjustments in place for assessment produced in collaboration with the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ - Access Arrangements, reasonable adjustments and Special Considerations). "Access arrangements are not there to give candidates an unfair advantage, but to give all candidates a level playing field in which to demonstrate their skills, knowledge and understanding." The flexibility of the assessment process to accommodate the needs of disabled students is not particularly well publicised on the AQA website and took me some time to find. Hopefully this does not mean that some students who may be eligible are lacking requests for access arrangements being made on their behalf.

Activity 1.6 - Review of Seale Chapters 6 - 10

Communication between key stakeholders seemed to me to be the underlying theme of Seale Chapters 6 -9 and is something that was familiar to my own context.

From the lecturers perspective, communicating with students and support staff to determine context specific problems and communicating with management regarding learning design approaches to be adopted and how they should be followed.

From the learning technologists perspective, communicating with academic staff and/or students regarding their technical needs in a way that does not convey an "I know best, I'm a professional" sense of patronisation. They also need real experience of these difficulties via simulations, experimenting with assistive technologies and so on, as well as understanding guidlines and the techniocal aspects of conformance. Working with academic staff to provide accessible learning environments that are flexible enough to meet the needs of a range of students is required.

The student support service could provide a key role in getting different stakeholders communicating with one another as they need to be able to coordinate efforts for the sake of supporting the students. Two-way communication may improve the efficiency with which students can be supported. As the area with direct responsibility for the support of disabled students the effectiveness of this department will have a large impact on student satisfaction.

Likewise, staff development departments can play a key role in facilitating interdepartmental communication through disability awareness programmes and ongoing training. Working with all stakeholders to determine the needs and expectations of training will be important to the success of such awareness drives.

Without effective policy and leadership from senior management none of the above is likely to be realised, however senior management must also realise that all stakeholders can make a valid contribution to the development of an accessibility action plan. If it is implemented in a top-down fashion with little consultation with the ground level staff who will be responsible for facilitating the change most policy will be doomed to fail (or sit on the intranet unnoticed and ineffective.

Notes on Seale Chapter 10

My organisation has a disability policy which quotes the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA). It was written by a member of senior management (Head of Social Inclusion) and I am unaware of any collaboration with other key stakeholders in the production of the policy. It takes the form of a position statement rather than a policy and offers little practical advice on how to achieve compliance, expectations for compliance such as timescales, or consequences for not achieving conformance. It may also be beneficial to provide additional accessibility policies for areas of specific difficulty such as the production of online materials (online curriculum content and school website).

Points of interest from chapter 10 include :

• Lack of guidance for senior management teams (SMT) on the production of accessibility guidelines.
• A feeling of diminished responsibility from SMT from perceived 'get-out' clauses and unlikelihood of legal action
• Communication between stakeholders was a key factor to facilitating successful change including the set up of focus groups and collaboration during policy writing
• Policy must be accompanied by a plan for implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures and consequences for non-conformance. This can create a sense of 'collective responsibility'.
• Purchasing responsibilities of SMT can influence the accessibility of technologies used within an organisation

H806 Results Day

Hoorah!

I got my ECA results for H806 today and am pleased to report that I passed. Yeay!

Phew!

Notes on Seale Chapter 9

Developing Accessible E-learning Practice - The Staff Developers Perspective.

The questions for guiding the reading for this chapter weren't really that relevant to me but I have made the following notes and observations.

Accessibility is an issue which requires organisational change across the board. Communication, information and training will be key to facilitating effective change.

Staff developers need to design and deliver effective programmes but also need to consider how they are promoted to staff to generate interest and enthusiasm.

Different stakeholders will require information and training on different issues that are specific to their role as well as general accessibility awareness training. It is likely that providing specific examples of students with difficulties (e.g. case studies) and subject/department specific issues (e.g. for accessibility in art and design) will help to personalise the issue and put it into context.

A blended learning approach is likely to be most successful. Workshops to raise awareness coupled with ongoing face to face training and online materials for just-in-time learning. A disadvantage of workshops is that "staff may see the issues as an add-on or afterthought rather than an integral part of the process" (Seale, 2006). While this may be true, it is unfortunate that at an organisational level accessibility has actually been an add-on or an after-thought which has resulted in this accessibility. In addition to awareness workshops, specific training and online materials the subject of accessibility should be integrated into all areas of training such as using the VLE etc.

Understanding the impact of specific disabilities and the practical considerations of using assistive technologies is a key element. It is also useful for staff to understand the consequences of these outside of the own department context. For example, student support staff need to know how assistive technology can be used to assist access to a VLE but also how the VLE itself works and any built in accessibility features such as customisation so that they can show the students they are supporting.

Bringing together stakeholders to discuss the content of training and different areas for consideration is likely to help improve the effectiveness of accessibility awareness training. Likewise, communicating with different stakeholders on their needs and expectations from training gives a sense of ownership and will likely be more receptive to the training at later stages.

Accreditation and qualifications may encourage staff to engage more readily with disability awareness training. Recognising the achievements and professional development of staff will generate a more positive response. A coercive approach instigating compulsory training is unlikely to be well received.

Practical advice on creating accessible resources should be included in training, not just reasons why they should be produced.

Notes on Seale Chapter 8

How helpful do you think it is to have ‘specialised’ rooms or areas in an educational institution, which only disabled learners can use to access technology/online learning material?

I think this perpetuates the idea of disability support as an activity seperate from the mainstream. It remains an 'other' entity and not integrated within an organisation. Although I specialist units are better than no support at all.

Do you think student support services need to employ accessibility or disability experts? If so, how might the role of these ‘experts’ complement or work against the role of other staff working within student support services?


It is possible for speciailist disability/accessibility staff to work within an organisation to make a positive change as long as they are integrated successfully with exisiting services. They are likely to be a good source of additional information.

How are student support services organised or structured in your institution? In what ways do you think this organisation influences the way in which disabled learners are supported to use or access technology?

Not applicable.

What would you change about the way in which students are supported in your institution and why? (You might find your notes from Week 4 relevant to this question.)

Issues of communication between relevant departments remain a factor, it seems to be a recurring theme within the literature. Improving communication will be key to facilitating any organisational change.

Notes on Seale - Chapter 7

There is a debate surrounding who is responsible (or most responsible) for accessibility. How helpful is this debate in ensuring that people working in post-16 education change their practices?

Perhaps a better question would be, who is NOT responsible? Few learning experiences are the result of input from one lone ranger.

If those with technical skills, such as learning technologists, are not ultimately or solely responsible for ensuring accessibility, what responsibilities do you think they should have and why?

Communication. Technical staff are perhaps well placed to make sense of the guidelines and how to implement them, understand the practicalities of assistive technologies, how to make things compatible and compliant. If they can communicate some of the key points and issues to other staff such as academics and senior management and disseminate understanding throughout the organisation that would be a good start.

On pages 82–83, Seale uses an archaeology metaphor to try to encourage learning technologists to dig deeper beneath the surface of accessibility guidelines and standards. This is intended to develop a greater understanding of approaches to accessible design. How helpful do you think this metaphor is? Can you think of an alternative metaphor, image, analogy or visualisation that could be used to help develop learning technologists’ thinking in this area?

The archaeology metaphor is as helpful as any other I guess. Learning technologists will be better placed to understand accessibility issues if they have looked beyond the technical guidelines and have some practical experience e.g. using assistive technologies to get a better understanding. This was very helpful for me as I was aware of best practices and guidelines but had never tried any assistive technologies before this course. Just a couple of hours was even enough to open my eyes.

On page 98 Seale discusses the tensions regarding the use of technical tools versus human judgement to evaluate the accessibility of learning resources. What is your position concerning this issue?

A combined approach has got to be taken. As a producer of materials I do find the automated tools useful to help identify problems I may have missed BUT they are only after gaining an understanding of the underlying issues and best practices in the first instance.

Can we trust human judgement? If so, whose judgement should we trust – learning technologists working within educational organisations or external experts?

We have little choice but to trust human judgement to some extent. Automated tools are not delivered by storks after all. Who should we trust? All of the above. Gathering information and having discussion is surely key to improving accessibility at all levels from the guidelines of national and international bodies to organisational levels and to individual technical and academic staff.

Notes on Seale - Chapter 6

On page 70 (Seale, 2006) it is suggested that accessibility is frequently framed as a technical issue, rather than a pedagogical (learning and teaching) one. Can you think of any arguments, evidence, or examples from what you have read, or from your experience that could help lecturers (teachers, faculty) see accessibility as a pedagogical issue?

Marshall makes a good point in his post, that "the earlier you are considering this [accessibility] the more likely you are to see it as a pedagogical issue - the later in the design process, when you discover the problems, then you turn to the technical approach - my design doesn't work for this student, is there a technical fix? As we are only now beginning to think about this stuff from the ground up we are bound to be spending most of our efforts on adapting older curricula because that's what there is." I would definitely say that if accessibility is built into the planning of educational experiences from the outset it becomes part of the process ... which in my eyes is a healthy way of approaching it. Thinking of something as integral rather that something separate and just-another-thing-on-the-list. It links back to the chapters main points which seem to be about taking a proactive and flexible teaching approach. I guess it comes down to attitudes which have a better chance of change with greater understanding.

The blame-shifting and excuses (which I agree is something I have noticed in Seale's book) aren't really limited to accessibility either. There is a feeling of resentment and apathy towards elearning as a whole among some educators (especially those based in a traditional classroom setting). In my context getting teachers to provide their online curriculum in the first place is seen as a chore and something unnecessary and separate from their teaching. Adding accessibility into the mix is yet another challenge and likely to be met with some resentment. I can picture the conversation. "You mean you made me put all my course materials online and now your telling me the format is wrong/they aren't accessible/i have to do it all again?"

That's what happens when things are implemented without the input from specialist staff and with insufficient communication between senior management and the staff they need on board to make it successful - the teachers. I have an article about this somewhere. I will find it and post a link.

Some of the key principles that underpin different design approaches include: inclusivity, equity, holism, proactivity and flexibility. How are these principles defined in the literature? Are they sufficiently clear and consistent so that lecturers can apply them to their own practice?

There seemed to be a lot of overlap between the definitions of design approaches here. I think the moral of the story is that there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach to designing accessible learning experiences. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all definition of disabled students. Look at each situation on its own merits, think about the type of problems that are likely to arise and ways in which they can be overcome or avoided ... actually talking to technical staff or accessibility specialists or disabled students might be helpful too.