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.
... exactly what it says on the tin. A blog for little bits of stuff that I learn along the way or generally find interesting. Most likely ever-so-slightly geeky learning technology bits and bobs.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
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 :
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.
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.
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.
Friday, 12 December 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
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.
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!
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.
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.
Monday, 8 December 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Week 11 Activity 4.1 - Evaluation Methods
I have done some testing of a few different resources using a few different methods.
1. I downloaded the Fujitsu Web Accessibiity Inspector and the Fujitsu Color Doctor and tested the website for the school where I work and an online elearning resource library that we produced as part of our outreach programme.
2. I tested the resource I made for the week 10 activity using the W3C Markup Validation Service to evaluate the resource and compared those results to the ones resulting from the Fujitsu Web Accessibiity Inspector.
I have used the W3C online validation to check website code in the past, it was easy to use and online content can be checked by entering the website URL or uploading files directly. There is also a CSS checker for external style sheets. It does a good job of checking that the code that is used is compliant to W3C standards. The tool highlighted a couple of small issues with my code which I was able to correct easily and then my week 10 activity passed the minimum accessibility requirements and I was presented with the code to add a W3C Compliance logo to my webpage.
I found the Fujitsu tools on the W3C WAI pages in their list of tools. They are free to download and use and were released in 2008. I chose to look at these because they were the most recent software releases in the list of recommended tools by the W3C. When I ran the same week 10 activity page through the Fujitsu Accessibility Inspector it alerted me to many more potential issues than the W3C validator had done. One of the issues it highlighted was that the colour I have used for headings and sub-headings is not considered significantly different in contrast to the page background and may cause problems for visually imparied users. The code that I had written was technically correct and I was impressed that it was actually checking for color contrast and so on. I shall be using this tool in the future.
The fujitsu Color Doctor gives you a visual representation of how a web page, including the graphics, would look according to different types of colour blindness. This was interersting as it gave me a visual representation of some of the colour/contrast issues highlighted by the Accessibility Inspector.
1. I downloaded the Fujitsu Web Accessibiity Inspector and the Fujitsu Color Doctor and tested the website for the school where I work and an online elearning resource library that we produced as part of our outreach programme.
2. I tested the resource I made for the week 10 activity using the W3C Markup Validation Service to evaluate the resource and compared those results to the ones resulting from the Fujitsu Web Accessibiity Inspector.
I have used the W3C online validation to check website code in the past, it was easy to use and online content can be checked by entering the website URL or uploading files directly. There is also a CSS checker for external style sheets. It does a good job of checking that the code that is used is compliant to W3C standards. The tool highlighted a couple of small issues with my code which I was able to correct easily and then my week 10 activity passed the minimum accessibility requirements and I was presented with the code to add a W3C Compliance logo to my webpage.
I found the Fujitsu tools on the W3C WAI pages in their list of tools. They are free to download and use and were released in 2008. I chose to look at these because they were the most recent software releases in the list of recommended tools by the W3C. When I ran the same week 10 activity page through the Fujitsu Accessibility Inspector it alerted me to many more potential issues than the W3C validator had done. One of the issues it highlighted was that the colour I have used for headings and sub-headings is not considered significantly different in contrast to the page background and may cause problems for visually imparied users. The code that I had written was technically correct and I was impressed that it was actually checking for color contrast and so on. I shall be using this tool in the future.
The fujitsu Color Doctor gives you a visual representation of how a web page, including the graphics, would look according to different types of colour blindness. This was interersting as it gave me a visual representation of some of the colour/contrast issues highlighted by the Accessibility Inspector.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Week 11 Activity 2.1 - Evaluation Methods
From your reading of the set book and the introduction to this section, consider which approach or approaches you might take to evaluate the accessibility of the online learning resource that you created in Week 10.
When evaluating online content for accessibility I would always use guidelines and checklists as my starting point. Awareness of them during the building process means they can be applied during development and prevent issues occurring at a later stage. I would test for compliant code using a validator at intervals throughout the development process as it is easier to resolve issues at earlier stages in development than when the resource is complete.
I would also test their compatibility with assistive technologies by trialling them myself. This is unlikely to produce the same results as testing with disabled users but it may highlight issues that were not made apparent from using accessibility checklist and validation tools.
It is unlikely in my role that we would test with disabled users or accessibility experts. As a mainstream secondary school we have very few disabled students, however there may be occasions when we test resources for use with a specific student if it has been designed with their assistance in mind.
If we felt testing with disable users or accessibility experts was necessary for a particular project I would like to make every attempt to produce a resource that was accessible to the best of my knowledge before testing took place. Hopefully this would reduce the requirement for redevelopment and further testing and keep costs to a minimum.
When evaluating online content for accessibility I would always use guidelines and checklists as my starting point. Awareness of them during the building process means they can be applied during development and prevent issues occurring at a later stage. I would test for compliant code using a validator at intervals throughout the development process as it is easier to resolve issues at earlier stages in development than when the resource is complete.
I would also test their compatibility with assistive technologies by trialling them myself. This is unlikely to produce the same results as testing with disabled users but it may highlight issues that were not made apparent from using accessibility checklist and validation tools.
It is unlikely in my role that we would test with disabled users or accessibility experts. As a mainstream secondary school we have very few disabled students, however there may be occasions when we test resources for use with a specific student if it has been designed with their assistance in mind.
If we felt testing with disable users or accessibility experts was necessary for a particular project I would like to make every attempt to produce a resource that was accessible to the best of my knowledge before testing took place. Hopefully this would reduce the requirement for redevelopment and further testing and keep costs to a minimum.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Web Accessibility Guidelines 2.0: Better Than a Poke in the Eye With a Stick?
"The World Wide Web Consortium is planning to implement a new version of the Web accessibility guidelines this year" says Bill Weye of the Notes on Design blog in his article entitled 'Web accessibility Guidelines 2.0: Better than a poke in the eye with a stick' . "People smarter than I think the project is confusing, long overdue, and that the process of revision is broken," he continues. It would seem that even the people trying to improve the guidelines and make them less confusing are having trouble which begs the question what hope is there for the rest of us?
Wanting to investigate the other side of the story, however, I went to have a peek on the W3C website to peruse the version 2.0 guidelines for myself. Personally, I didn't have too much of a problem with the version 1.0 guidelines but things move on and they needed a refresh. Also from discussions in the forum for H810 it would seem that some of the terms were a bit ambiguous or confusing, particularly if taken out of context from the rest of the document. My first impression is that actually, they might be improved on version 1.0. The language is more technical but it also seems more encompassing, taking into account the advancement in technology since the original guidelines were compiled. These guidelines are not for everyone, they are specifically aimed at web professionals and not the casual hobbyist. They may need a watering down for the non-technical web content publisher. Something in the style of Educause's '7 Things You Should Know About ...' series would be useful.
The formatting of the page containing the guidelines on the W3C website however, is truly and deeply horrible! Really difficult to read in my opinion and in a nasty bullet point format. My verdict? Nice try, could do better.
Wanting to investigate the other side of the story, however, I went to have a peek on the W3C website to peruse the version 2.0 guidelines for myself. Personally, I didn't have too much of a problem with the version 1.0 guidelines but things move on and they needed a refresh. Also from discussions in the forum for H810 it would seem that some of the terms were a bit ambiguous or confusing, particularly if taken out of context from the rest of the document. My first impression is that actually, they might be improved on version 1.0. The language is more technical but it also seems more encompassing, taking into account the advancement in technology since the original guidelines were compiled. These guidelines are not for everyone, they are specifically aimed at web professionals and not the casual hobbyist. They may need a watering down for the non-technical web content publisher. Something in the style of Educause's '7 Things You Should Know About ...' series would be useful.
The formatting of the page containing the guidelines on the W3C website however, is truly and deeply horrible! Really difficult to read in my opinion and in a nasty bullet point format. My verdict? Nice try, could do better.
Week 10 Activity 3.1 - Reflection on Creating an Accessible Resource
Why did you choose the particular topic?
The resource I produced was an accessible version of the first lesson in a Totem Pole module for the Art & Desing department in the school where I work. It is for key stage three students aged 12-13 years. I decided on the totem pole module becasue I was thinkning about some of the multimedia elements I have been involved in creating which ones could be made more accessible. I was also keen to try transcribing a video and the 'shaping cardboard' video that was produced for the totem pole module seemed a good place to start.
Why did you include particular elements?
I included a flash video. I used this format as the player is accessible to screen readers and navigable using a mouse. You can include in-video captions using flash video, and this is something I would like to try in addition to providing a transcript but I ran out of time. I also included some website links for additional research.
What guidelines did you refer to when creating the resource?
I referred to the W3C Web Content Accessibility guidelines becasue I produced the resource in HTML, like a lesson website. I made sure I included a page title, kept the formatting information in an external style sheet, provided alternative text for pictures, a transcript for the video and kept the page layout simple.
What areas were particularly difficult and why do you think this to be the case?
None of the areas was particularly difficult as I was already aware of the guidelines and have produced accessible materials before so I was aware of the techniques and processes involved. I did find the transcript was surprisingly time consuming. It took me over an hour to transcribe a video that was three to four minutes long because it needed to include a lot of descriptive information, not just a direct copy of the narrative.
Do you think the act of making an accessible resource affected the way that the learning outcomes were addressed?
In this instance the act of making the resource accessible was a case of adhering to best practices, the learning outcomes remain the same as the inaccessible version of the lesson.
How many of the decisions you made about the resource were influenced by technical considerations? How many of your decisions were influenced by pedagogical or other considerations?
The key decisions I made about the resource and the reasons for doing them are listed below :
The resource I produced was an accessible version of the first lesson in a Totem Pole module for the Art & Desing department in the school where I work. It is for key stage three students aged 12-13 years. I decided on the totem pole module becasue I was thinkning about some of the multimedia elements I have been involved in creating which ones could be made more accessible. I was also keen to try transcribing a video and the 'shaping cardboard' video that was produced for the totem pole module seemed a good place to start.
Why did you include particular elements?
I included a flash video. I used this format as the player is accessible to screen readers and navigable using a mouse. You can include in-video captions using flash video, and this is something I would like to try in addition to providing a transcript but I ran out of time. I also included some website links for additional research.
What guidelines did you refer to when creating the resource?
I referred to the W3C Web Content Accessibility guidelines becasue I produced the resource in HTML, like a lesson website. I made sure I included a page title, kept the formatting information in an external style sheet, provided alternative text for pictures, a transcript for the video and kept the page layout simple.
What areas were particularly difficult and why do you think this to be the case?
None of the areas was particularly difficult as I was already aware of the guidelines and have produced accessible materials before so I was aware of the techniques and processes involved. I did find the transcript was surprisingly time consuming. It took me over an hour to transcribe a video that was three to four minutes long because it needed to include a lot of descriptive information, not just a direct copy of the narrative.
Do you think the act of making an accessible resource affected the way that the learning outcomes were addressed?
In this instance the act of making the resource accessible was a case of adhering to best practices, the learning outcomes remain the same as the inaccessible version of the lesson.
How many of the decisions you made about the resource were influenced by technical considerations? How many of your decisions were influenced by pedagogical or other considerations?
The key decisions I made about the resource and the reasons for doing them are listed below :
- Use of HTML. This was a technical consideration. HTML is an accessible method of providing online content as long as best practices are adhered to. It can easily be customised by users either by using assistive technologies such as screen readers or magnifiers or built in accessibility features such as making text larger in the browser settings.
- Page formatting. I used size 12 font with increased line spacing and left hand justification and a pale coloured background. This might to assist users with visual impairment or learning difficulties. I also kept the pages short, linking to additional information rather than including it on one long page to assist navigation and understanding.
- Video. This was technical and pedagogical consideration. I chose the flash format for the video as this claims to be accessible for screen readers and keyboard navigation. Providing a video is engaging for those students who are able to view the video, and also provides a point of reference for review of the subject later unlike a live demonstration. The transcript was provided as an accessible alternative.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Week 9 Activity 3.1 - Using Guidelines (Accessibility Lesson Plan)
Learning outcomes
To understand disability in an online environment
Awareness of assistive technologies
Develop skills and learn techniques for providing accessible content
A list of topics to cover
Difficulties encountered by disabled students (Hearing, Visual, Physical, Cognitive)
Assistive Technologies to assist disabled students (Screen Readers, Screen Magnifiers, Navigation Tools)
Basic Web Accessibility including:
- Page layout and navigation
- Accessible Text
- Accessible Graphics
- Accessible Sound and Video
- Accessible Interactive Media
Resources that you would use
Disability Simulators
Experimenting with Assistive Technology
Comparison of Accessible and Inaccessible content
Which method of teaching
F2F group session with online resources used within the session and available for review after the course.
The length of time it would take
One full day professional development session with the morning focused on understanding and experiencing accessibility issues for learning objectives 1 and 2 and the afternoon spent practicing creating accessible online content for objective 3.
To understand disability in an online environment
Awareness of assistive technologies
Develop skills and learn techniques for providing accessible content
A list of topics to cover
Difficulties encountered by disabled students (Hearing, Visual, Physical, Cognitive)
Assistive Technologies to assist disabled students (Screen Readers, Screen Magnifiers, Navigation Tools)
Basic Web Accessibility including:
- Page layout and navigation
- Accessible Text
- Accessible Graphics
- Accessible Sound and Video
- Accessible Interactive Media
Resources that you would use
Disability Simulators
Experimenting with Assistive Technology
Comparison of Accessible and Inaccessible content
Which method of teaching
F2F group session with online resources used within the session and available for review after the course.
The length of time it would take
One full day professional development session with the morning focused on understanding and experiencing accessibility issues for learning objectives 1 and 2 and the afternoon spent practicing creating accessible online content for objective 3.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Week 8 Activity 2.1 - Alternative Resource in Context
Write a list for yourself of the resources that are used by students in your context.
What media or formats are the resources in?
Printed materials
Online text and images
PDF Documents
Microsoft Office documents
Flash Multimedia
Video
Which students would need an alternative? Which alternatives would be an ideal solution, given unlimited human and technical resources?
Visually impaired students may need large format printed materials. Online text and images should be accessible if they have been produced according to guidelines. Recently created PDF documents should be accessible, where older ones may need to be reformatted. Flash multimedia may need to be accompanied by text or audio descriptions if they have not been included in the file itself. Interactive flash activities may be inaccessible to mobility impaired students. Transcripts or captioning of video should be included for hearing impaired students.
Which alternatives are practical in the context of the learning outcomes?
All of the alternatives mentioned above can realistically be achieved within the institution.
Are the resources readily available for your students at the time they need them?
Recently created resources will be accessible although reformatting or redevelopment of older resources may be required as and when they are needed.
Who in your organisation is responsible for providing alternative formats and any descriptions required?
teaching staff should be producing accessible materials for their students. They can approach the IT Support department (in particular the Web/ELearning Developer or Video/Multimedia Developer for assistance.
Is anyone responsible for checking the quality of alternative format materials?
Senior management are ultimately responsible for the quality of materials produced by their subject departments, assisted and advised by the Web/ELearning Developer within the IT Support Department.
Are there any copyright issues?
Copyright issues may exist when reproducing or making adjustments to third party content.
What media or formats are the resources in?
Printed materials
Online text and images
PDF Documents
Microsoft Office documents
Flash Multimedia
Video
Which students would need an alternative? Which alternatives would be an ideal solution, given unlimited human and technical resources?
Visually impaired students may need large format printed materials. Online text and images should be accessible if they have been produced according to guidelines. Recently created PDF documents should be accessible, where older ones may need to be reformatted. Flash multimedia may need to be accompanied by text or audio descriptions if they have not been included in the file itself. Interactive flash activities may be inaccessible to mobility impaired students. Transcripts or captioning of video should be included for hearing impaired students.
Which alternatives are practical in the context of the learning outcomes?
All of the alternatives mentioned above can realistically be achieved within the institution.
Are the resources readily available for your students at the time they need them?
Recently created resources will be accessible although reformatting or redevelopment of older resources may be required as and when they are needed.
Who in your organisation is responsible for providing alternative formats and any descriptions required?
teaching staff should be producing accessible materials for their students. They can approach the IT Support department (in particular the Web/ELearning Developer or Video/Multimedia Developer for assistance.
Is anyone responsible for checking the quality of alternative format materials?
Senior management are ultimately responsible for the quality of materials produced by their subject departments, assisted and advised by the Web/ELearning Developer within the IT Support Department.
Are there any copyright issues?
Copyright issues may exist when reproducing or making adjustments to third party content.
Week 8 - Activity 1.1 Alternative Formats
Make a list of at least five alternative formats in your blog. Use your own experience and any relevant notes from previous weeks to make brief notes for each format about its positive features, its negative features, the technical resources that might be needed to create it, the human resources that might be needed to create it.
Audio Format
Audio Format
- Converting text to audio format by having the content narrated and recorded is a good way of making material accessible to visually imparied people.
- If the audio file is not broken down into chunks it may be difficult for the listener to find the information they are looking for e.g. to skip to a certain chapter in a book. If information is only provided in audio format it would be inaccessible to hearing impared people.
- Most computers can be used to record sound using software included as standard and a microphone. Basic microphones for PCs are inexpensive. Professional sound recording equipment does cost more. The quality of the sound recording will be linked to the quality of the equipment and the environment in which it is recorded
- Depending on the scale of the project there may be need to employ one or more narrators. For professional sound recording and editing a specialist may be required to operate the equipment and to produce the finished audio.
Braille and Tactile Graphics
- Helps deaf-blind people read text and access computers. Electronic text can be converted to braille using braille display hardware. Can help to reduce the bulk of long text.
- Braille will be inaccessible to most other students and tutors unless thay have had special training.
- Braille display hardware can be expensive.
- Specially trained staff will be required for the production of braille materials. They can be produced fairly easily and inexpensively but unless the producer understands how to read the braille they will not be able to check for errors and quality control.
Captioned Videos
- Also called subtitles, captioning makes video accessible to hearing impared people.
- Although they are relatively easy to implement for new projects it may be time consuming to revisit archived videos that are not captioned to make them accessible.
- Most commercially produced DVDs will contain captioning and can be accessed using a standard DVD player.
- Staff trained in using video editing software will be required to produce captioned video material.
Large Print Materials
- It is easy to create large copies of digital material withough losing quality in the reproduction. The can be produced inexpensively.
- If materials are only available in hard copy and not digital format it may be more difficult and time consuming to produce large format alternatives. When whole books are reproduced in large print they may be cumbersome for the user.
- Most digital materials can just be printed using a large format printer. These are probably available in most institutions. Printed materials may be blown up on a photocopier although the quality of the material will deteriorate if copies are made of copies.
- Reprographics staff can print or copy materials in large format without additional training. It may be beneficial to make content producers within the institution aware of best practices for formatting large print materials.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Week 7 Activity 4.1 - Researching Assistive Technology Tools
I chose the following technologies for further research from the TechDis Presentation 'Assistive Technology Overview' and evaluated its main features, the cost of the technology and supplier training.
Talking Word Processors
Talking Word Processors
- Word processors that have a speech facility to enable users to hear the words and sentences as they are being typed. Some also read toolbars and menu’s. They may have a word bank facility to make suggestions.
- Write:Outloud seems to be popular in the UK and can be purchased for between £31 - £71 depending on the number of licenses.
- ‘Getting Started’ manual available online. Also found some third party tutorials. I didn’t find any formal training courses for Write: OUtloud.
Trackballs
- For mobility impaired users, a trackball is a screen navigation device for users who find it difficult to grip a mouse or move it accurately.
- Various costs from £20 +
- No formal training required. Manufacturer instruction manuals probably available. There are video demonstrations on YouTube.
- The primary purpose of a virtual keyboard is to provide an alternative mechanism for disabled users that can not use a physical keyboard
- Built in version with Windows OS, free version by MiloSoft, others include My-T-Touch from $99 and Comfort Software £9.95 (lite) and £19.95 (pro)
- Built in help files with Windows. No support from MiloSoft. Online documentation for My-T-Touch. Online documentation, email support and user forums supplied by Comfort.
Large Size Keyboards
- Useful for visually or mobility impared computer users.
- From £50, various suppliers including ITTools and Fentech Industries.
- Manufacturer instruction manuals.
- Braille displays provide a refreshable tactile output of information represented on the computer screen.
- Expensive! Starting at over £3k for basic display up to almost £7k for larger or more feature rich displays.
- Manufacturer instruction manuals.
Hearing Loop Systems
- Reduces background noise for hearing aid/loop users e.g. can be used in busy public places, or at home watching the television.
- Portable or static hearing loop systems start from £130 +
- Manufacturer instruction manuals.
Week 7 Activity 3.2 - Benevolent Bill Part 2
I have just been trying out some of the activities from the TechDis presentation 'Impact of Assistive Technologies on the User'.
Using Microsoft's Built-In Assistive Technologies - The Magnifier
The magnifier splits the monitor into two sections. You move your curer over the original application window and it is displayed in the magnification window according to your magnification settings. I have never used before so I was keen to give the activities from the presentation a try.
The first was a seamingly simple reading exercise. Click on a link to open a word document and read it using the magnifier. How hard can that be? Well the first problem that I encountered was that when I clicked on the link to open the readin exercise a "Do you want to open or save this file?" dialogue box popped up outside the area I was magnifying so it looked like nothing had happened. Once I figured that out however, I was getting along perfectly fine with the reading ... until i had to scroll down the page. I moved the magnifier over to the right hand scroll bar and scrolled down a little, but because the magnifier was now focussed on the scrollbar and not the text i couldn't see how far I had scrolled and lost my place. I had to go back to the beginning and start again using the keyboard to scroll instead.
The second exercise was a drag and drop. The first problem I had with this was the format ... Microsoft word isn't exactly the ideal medium for a drag and drop activity. when you click to drag a label it dissapears (apart from an outline) and where I thought I was dragging one label I was actually dragging another and ended up putting it in the wrong box. I also had problems with scrolling again because the drag and drop activity was put together with drawing objects so I couldn't just use the up and down arrows to navigate (although now I think about it I might have been able to use 'page down'?)
Using Microsoft's Built-In Assistive Technologies - The Narrator
Narrator is Microsoft's built in screen reader for the XP operating system. When using this the first thing that I noticed was that I had made tabbing through the controls with the keyboard very difficult for myself by having lots of icons enabled at the top of my browser. When I finally reached the website I didn't realise I had got to them menu because the links were graphics with no alternative (alt) text.
I have to say, navigating this website using the screen reader was impossible for me ... even when cheated and I switched the monitor back on!!! I found it difficult to understand the computer generated voice, I couldn't not figure out how to get Narrator to read any page content apart from the links and I if I tabbed past the link I wanted I couldn't get it to go backwards. This page was completely inaccessible, very frustrating and the Narrator got pretty annoying after a while.
Using Microsoft's Built-In Assistive Technologies - The Magnifier
The magnifier splits the monitor into two sections. You move your curer over the original application window and it is displayed in the magnification window according to your magnification settings. I have never used before so I was keen to give the activities from the presentation a try.
The first was a seamingly simple reading exercise. Click on a link to open a word document and read it using the magnifier. How hard can that be? Well the first problem that I encountered was that when I clicked on the link to open the readin exercise a "Do you want to open or save this file?" dialogue box popped up outside the area I was magnifying so it looked like nothing had happened. Once I figured that out however, I was getting along perfectly fine with the reading ... until i had to scroll down the page. I moved the magnifier over to the right hand scroll bar and scrolled down a little, but because the magnifier was now focussed on the scrollbar and not the text i couldn't see how far I had scrolled and lost my place. I had to go back to the beginning and start again using the keyboard to scroll instead.
The second exercise was a drag and drop. The first problem I had with this was the format ... Microsoft word isn't exactly the ideal medium for a drag and drop activity. when you click to drag a label it dissapears (apart from an outline) and where I thought I was dragging one label I was actually dragging another and ended up putting it in the wrong box. I also had problems with scrolling again because the drag and drop activity was put together with drawing objects so I couldn't just use the up and down arrows to navigate (although now I think about it I might have been able to use 'page down'?)
Using Microsoft's Built-In Assistive Technologies - The Narrator
Narrator is Microsoft's built in screen reader for the XP operating system. When using this the first thing that I noticed was that I had made tabbing through the controls with the keyboard very difficult for myself by having lots of icons enabled at the top of my browser. When I finally reached the website I didn't realise I had got to them menu because the links were graphics with no alternative (alt) text.
I have to say, navigating this website using the screen reader was impossible for me ... even when cheated and I switched the monitor back on!!! I found it difficult to understand the computer generated voice, I couldn't not figure out how to get Narrator to read any page content apart from the links and I if I tabbed past the link I wanted I couldn't get it to go backwards. This page was completely inaccessible, very frustrating and the Narrator got pretty annoying after a while.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Week 7 Activity 3.1 - Benevolent Bill Part 1
I am currently running a linux OS with Open Office, however I read the presentation about microsoft accessibility features with interest. In a comparison of MS Word with Open Office Writer it would seem that Microsoft have some more advanced accessibility features than Open Office, which I suppose is understandable given the resource available to Microsoft and their closed working practices.
Open Office programes are completely operable using keyboard shortcuts, and these are quite straight forward to operate. I don't think it would take long to get become accustomed to this way of working. The interface of their programmes is also customisable so users can change default font size and colours, background colours, icon size and layout, mouse pointer properties etc.
I needed to consult the Open Office help guides in order to find out how to access various accessibility feature and I needed to do this using traditional methods i.e. using a mouse. A disabled person may require some assistance on first use to find out the accessibility features.
Open Office programes are completely operable using keyboard shortcuts, and these are quite straight forward to operate. I don't think it would take long to get become accustomed to this way of working. The interface of their programmes is also customisable so users can change default font size and colours, background colours, icon size and layout, mouse pointer properties etc.
I needed to consult the Open Office help guides in order to find out how to access various accessibility feature and I needed to do this using traditional methods i.e. using a mouse. A disabled person may require some assistance on first use to find out the accessibility features.
Introduction to Block Two : One Step Behind
I am just about to begin working on block two. Admittedly this is happening slightly belatedly, particularly as I was planning to work ever so slightly ahead of schedule for the beginning of this block. Unfortunately I was struck down with a very yukky flu bug during week 7 and was completely unable to look at a computer screen for more than five seconds at a time and then I was away on a week's annual leave so as everyone else starts week 9 I'm only just getting started. I am confident about my ability to catch up however, especially as I have been given a confidence boost after receiving my TMA grade which I was rather pleased with. (Although I was unable to unzip my feedback using my laptop. I have an asus eeepc with a linux operating system and the download from the etma system is a windows executable. I had to go and wait ten years for my desktop computer to load up vista before I could get at it!!!)
Looking at the introduction to the block on the course website it claims to be more practical than Block 1 which I am pleased about. I hope that means a little less reading and a bit more doing! I suppose there's only one way to find out ... so I had better get on with it!
Looking at the introduction to the block on the course website it claims to be more practical than Block 1 which I am pleased about. I hope that means a little less reading and a bit more doing! I suppose there's only one way to find out ... so I had better get on with it!
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Block One Complete
Hoorah! I've just sent in TMA01. I had a horrendous job keeping to the word count ... so much I wanted to say and so little space to say it. I had the arduous task of cutting 510 (!) words out of my first draft but I got there in the end, and I think I covered all the points I was supposed to. Hopefully :)
I'm going to have a rest from study now until after the weekend (I may even attempt some DIY on Sunday) and then begin block 2 in ernest. I have a week's annual leave coming up at the end of October so I want to try and get a little ahead of myself before then so I don't have too much catching up to do afterwards.
I'm going to have a rest from study now until after the weekend (I may even attempt some DIY on Sunday) and then begin block 2 in ernest. I have a week's annual leave coming up at the end of October so I want to try and get a little ahead of myself before then so I don't have too much catching up to do afterwards.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Learning Outcomes in your Context (Week 5 - Activity 1.1)
What are the issues in achieving learning objectives in your context?
I need to make sure the online materials I produce are accessible, written using compliant code and following best practices, with multimedia in accessible formats (or with alternative formats available). Michaels case study highlighted the benefits of having all materials available digitally and how this very much helps with his visual impariment. A lot of my work is linked with getting information online and so fits in with that practice.
Are there fundamental challenges for students with particular impairments in the subject that you teach?
I don't teach a particular subject, I support teaching staff who teach pretty much every subject! The challanges thier disabled students are likely to encounter with the multimedia learning materials I produce are ones that are linked to computer/multimedia use in general.
What would you need to consider if you were designing a module in art history that includes the ability to analyse visual primary sources as a core competence?
Analysing visual primary sources as part of an art history module is likely to provide challenges for visually impaired students. However, Michael's case study highlighted the fact that this would need to be assessed on an individual student basis. Although Michael was blind, he had been able to see until he was in his twenties and also had prior knowledge of some art work that had been described to him by his academic tutor. Verbal descriptions of visual sources might help visually impaired students with this core competence, as might the opporunity to discuss the source with a support worker and ask questions about the resource they were required to analyse.
I need to make sure the online materials I produce are accessible, written using compliant code and following best practices, with multimedia in accessible formats (or with alternative formats available). Michaels case study highlighted the benefits of having all materials available digitally and how this very much helps with his visual impariment. A lot of my work is linked with getting information online and so fits in with that practice.
Are there fundamental challenges for students with particular impairments in the subject that you teach?
I don't teach a particular subject, I support teaching staff who teach pretty much every subject! The challanges thier disabled students are likely to encounter with the multimedia learning materials I produce are ones that are linked to computer/multimedia use in general.
What would you need to consider if you were designing a module in art history that includes the ability to analyse visual primary sources as a core competence?
Analysing visual primary sources as part of an art history module is likely to provide challenges for visually impaired students. However, Michael's case study highlighted the fact that this would need to be assessed on an individual student basis. Although Michael was blind, he had been able to see until he was in his twenties and also had prior knowledge of some art work that had been described to him by his academic tutor. Verbal descriptions of visual sources might help visually impaired students with this core competence, as might the opporunity to discuss the source with a support worker and ask questions about the resource they were required to analyse.
Monday, 6 October 2008
Accessability history (Week 4 - Activity 3.1)
Make notes in your blog about the circumstances that lead to the successful implementation of assistive technology.
After reading the week 4 resources a couple of things stuck out as being particularly significant to successful implementation of assistive technology.
- Finance. Assistive technologies very often require significant additional investment, either on the part of the institution or the individual learner (Worcerster College for the Blind had ongoing financial difficulties throughout it's history, Léonie mentioned the cost of Screen Reader technology)
- Customisation/Adaptation. Disabled students may adapt thier computer, use additional hardware and even change thier desk to make using technology easier. Customisation options within software are also beneficial, for example allowing the user to change colours, sizes and layouts of software.
- Assumption. Don't make assumptions about what a disabled person may or may not be able to do. Each individual will have different needs, which we've mentioned briefly in previous weeks, so consultation is key.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Student Strategies (Week 4 - Activity 1.1)
Time Pressures
I identified the following experiences that would be common to many students starting higher education. Depending on the individual these experiences may be more pronounced for disabled students.
Good Practice
- Having to double check arrangements
- Researching available assistive technologies
- Planning accessible routes around campus
- Finding alternative temporary support while waiting for long term solutions to be arranged
- Waiting for course materials in alternative formats
- Alternative assessment arrangements (extra time, separate rooms, breaks etc.)
- Alternative emergency procedures (vibrate/flashing light alarms, assembly points)
- Working from home rather than on campus
- Getting used to independant living
- Being able to make contact with friends and family (phone lines, internet connection)
- Proof reading / reading aloud
I identified the following experiences that would be common to many students starting higher education. Depending on the individual these experiences may be more pronounced for disabled students.
- Feeling nervous, venerable and homesick.
- Tiredness and lack of sleep / trouble sleeping in new surroundings.
- Culture Shock.
- Meeting and dealing with new people.
- Feeling confused about what they should be doing, where they should be and what is expected of them.
- Becoming independent.
- Delays in allocation of Disabled Student Allowance (DSA), or delays in the delivery of DSA funded equipment.
- Mobility issues that cannot be resolved due to listed buildings etc.
Good Practice
- Institutions making anticipatory decisions when producing materials
- Institutions making arrangements in advance of the arrival of disabled students
- Institutions accommodating alternative learning methods/activities
Other Issues
- Choosing accessible courses/modules
- Ensuring access to suitable local healthcare for medical treatment
Monday, 29 September 2008
H810 ... the story so far.
I just feel a little like reflecting on H810 so far ... call it a displacement activity if you like, I should really be writing a long and really rather boring XML file for a document menu for Ofsted but I can't quite seem to get motivated on that but this is the first week that I am completely free from the distractions of H806. That means I can give my full attention to the remaining 17 weeks of H810 (and the end of my MA).
So far on the course I have found the disability simulator from JISC TechDis particularly enlightening. It gives non-impaired computer users some idea of how online content might be experienced by disabled students (in particular, dyslexic, autistic and visual / hearing impaired). Really fascinating actually.
I took a sneaky advance look at TMA01 this morning ... I have some concerns linked to my very limited (almost non-existent) experience or contact with disabled students at work. I think some imagination might be needed ... from a professional point of view however, it is better to think about this stuff before you need to implement it. I guess that would make me "anticipatory".
Anyway ... onwards!
So far on the course I have found the disability simulator from JISC TechDis particularly enlightening. It gives non-impaired computer users some idea of how online content might be experienced by disabled students (in particular, dyslexic, autistic and visual / hearing impaired). Really fascinating actually.
I took a sneaky advance look at TMA01 this morning ... I have some concerns linked to my very limited (almost non-existent) experience or contact with disabled students at work. I think some imagination might be needed ... from a professional point of view however, it is better to think about this stuff before you need to implement it. I guess that would make me "anticipatory".
Anyway ... onwards!
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Disability Awareness Training - (Week 3 - Activity 3.1)
As part of H810 I have been asked to write a piece about my previous experience of disability awareness training. This will be a short piece as I have never taken any disability awareness training! It's not that I have missed opportunities it's just that so far in my working life the opportunity has never arose. The only disability awareness training has been through research undertaken by my own initiative on the web, starting with organisations like W3C for online content accessibility. I was aware of this gap in my knowledge base and was one of my reasons for taking H810 as part of my MA ODE.
This question does make me wonder why disability awareness training is something that has never been available to me. Before I worked in education I worked for a commercial internet service provider building websites for SMEs and accessibility was at the bottom of their list of priorities. Even their own company website was inaccessible - very much style over substance. I am not surprised that I didn't receive any there, but as a national company there should really have been something. In my current employment there is at least a policy of inclusion but much more could be done.
This question does make me wonder why disability awareness training is something that has never been available to me. Before I worked in education I worked for a commercial internet service provider building websites for SMEs and accessibility was at the bottom of their list of priorities. Even their own company website was inaccessible - very much style over substance. I am not surprised that I didn't receive any there, but as a national company there should really have been something. In my current employment there is at least a policy of inclusion but much more could be done.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Roles and Responsibilies (Week 3 - Activity 1.2)
Read TechDis Senior Management Briefing 2 and write a paragraph in your blog about your role in applying policy and your relationship with others who share that responsibility.
My role as Web and ELearning Devloper sits inside the category of "Technical Team" so I also took a look at the Training and Support for Technical Teams section of the TechDis Website. In terms of appying policy my main role is to ensure that the online content that I produce meets accessibility standards (e.g. the school website or multimedia learning materials). I also identify issues with online content that has been created outside of my department i.e. by teaching staff and recommend solutions. If an issue appears to be a common occurence I may make suggestions to senior management regarding communication of potential problems to staff and/or produce training materials to address the problem.
From the TechDis Senior Management Briefing I identified the following quotes which I felt were pertinent the IT Support Department where my role is based.
"... the conflicts were created not by any unwillingness to serve the needs of disabled learners but by territoriality; isolated decision making without a holistic overview steered and supported by senior management."
My role as Web and ELearning Devloper sits inside the category of "Technical Team" so I also took a look at the Training and Support for Technical Teams section of the TechDis Website. In terms of appying policy my main role is to ensure that the online content that I produce meets accessibility standards (e.g. the school website or multimedia learning materials). I also identify issues with online content that has been created outside of my department i.e. by teaching staff and recommend solutions. If an issue appears to be a common occurence I may make suggestions to senior management regarding communication of potential problems to staff and/or produce training materials to address the problem.
From the TechDis Senior Management Briefing I identified the following quotes which I felt were pertinent the IT Support Department where my role is based.
"... the conflicts were created not by any unwillingness to serve the needs of disabled learners but by territoriality; isolated decision making without a holistic overview steered and supported by senior management."
"Compromises are inevitable but it is important to invite all the stakeholders to contribute to the final decision. In a Learning Resource Centre (LRC), where to place the computers with assistive technology will have implications for the LRC staff, the network manager, IT Technicians, learners support staff and the learners themselves. How the appropriate communication takes place would be unique to every organisation but the following points would be important:
- The communication is timely.
- The communication is genuine, not simply a rubber-stamping exercise.
- The communication is well documented.
- The communication is communicated – to illustrate how accessibility issues have been tackled and encouraging others to get involved in the process. "
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Legislation and policy (Week 3 - Activity 1.3)
Does your particular organisation have a policy on accessibility or inclusive teaching? Are its policies based on national or international legislation? In your country, are disability issues addressed by general legislation about equality and human rights?
I was able to get my hands on the school's 'Disability Policy' pretty easily. It is readily accessible to staff on our Intranet. The policy is made in line with the UK Disability Discrimination Act and covers students, staff and visitors to the site.
The introduction reads, "[The School] is committed to a fair and equal treatment of all individuals regardless of disablement. [The School] will welcome applications from people with
disabilities to join the Academy community as students and staff. [The School] has been designed and built to have provision and accessibility for people with disabilities so that they may be integrated fully into [School] life. The curriculum will be delivered through the use of ICT to provide flexible and equal access to all students whether able or disabled as far as is practicable within a mainstream educational establishment."
The intent to provide accessibility and inclusive teaching is definitely there, but I am aware that there are some improvements to be made before "flexible and equal access to all" is really achieved in terms of our Online Curriculum provision. We should be taking a more 'anticipatory' approach when producing these materials but bad practice is pretty widespread and would be difficult to eradicate given that staff have little interest in the provision of an online curriculum anyway.
I was able to get my hands on the school's 'Disability Policy' pretty easily. It is readily accessible to staff on our Intranet. The policy is made in line with the UK Disability Discrimination Act and covers students, staff and visitors to the site.
The introduction reads, "[The School] is committed to a fair and equal treatment of all individuals regardless of disablement. [The School] will welcome applications from people with
disabilities to join the Academy community as students and staff. [The School] has been designed and built to have provision and accessibility for people with disabilities so that they may be integrated fully into [School] life. The curriculum will be delivered through the use of ICT to provide flexible and equal access to all students whether able or disabled as far as is practicable within a mainstream educational establishment."
The intent to provide accessibility and inclusive teaching is definitely there, but I am aware that there are some improvements to be made before "flexible and equal access to all" is really achieved in terms of our Online Curriculum provision. We should be taking a more 'anticipatory' approach when producing these materials but bad practice is pretty widespread and would be difficult to eradicate given that staff have little interest in the provision of an online curriculum anyway.
Disability Legislation (Week3 - Activity 1.1)
In the conclusion to chapter 4 of Seale (2006) the author suggests that the introduction of standards, guidelines and legislation has not led to a significant improvement in accessibility. Is that how things appear from your context?
Yes, I think so. Although there are guidelines and legislation in place for accessibility I have found that many people who are creating online content are not aware of them. This would be in addition to Seale's concluding reasons that there is confusion over which standards or guidelines to adopt, the differences between them, and difficulties in interpreting and applying them.
The Accessibility Legislation by Techdis outlines the legislation in Europe and the UK. The author expresses the view that some of the terms used are ‘fluffy’ or imprecise. What problems are caused by this imprecision? Does the legislation bring any benefits? If so, who do you think benefits more: disabled students or teaching institutions?
Yes, I think so. Although there are guidelines and legislation in place for accessibility I have found that many people who are creating online content are not aware of them. This would be in addition to Seale's concluding reasons that there is confusion over which standards or guidelines to adopt, the differences between them, and difficulties in interpreting and applying them.
The Accessibility Legislation by Techdis outlines the legislation in Europe and the UK. The author expresses the view that some of the terms used are ‘fluffy’ or imprecise. What problems are caused by this imprecision? Does the legislation bring any benefits? If so, who do you think benefits more: disabled students or teaching institutions?
The imprecision might cause problems in that the legislation may be interpreted differently from one organisation to another. In a sense the imprecision is perhaps necessary because the term disability covers such a wide spectrum of impairment and individuals requirements are so widely different. If nothing else the legislation at least helps to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness of potential issues. Taking an "anticipatory" approach rather than a reactive one should benefit both students and institutions in the long term in that the students should encounter fewer problems on a daily basis and the ongoing costs for the institution are likely to be reduced if they are building accessability in (rather than bolting it on later).
Enable (2008) is a global movement from the United Nations to improve the rights of disabled people. One of the rights listed in the convention is the right to education. Has your country ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? If it hasn’t, why do you think that might be?
I found this article on the UK ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities from The Equality and Human Rights Commision from August 2008. It says, "The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into force on 3 May 2008. The UK Government has not yet ratified, but has signalled its intention to do so by the end of 2008. " Reasons for not yet ratifying are that some "Government Departments were considering expressing 'reservations' or 'interpretive declarations' in relation to parts of the Convention in order to be able to ratify," and they "wish to see the UK ratify without reservations."
In Moving legislation into action: the examples of India & South Africa (Wong-Hernandez, 2001) what common factor or factors does she identify as hindering progress?
The main factors that seem to be hindering progress according to Wong-Hernandex seem to be education and enforcement. She suggests that individuals, organisations and establishments should be educated about legislation and the rights of disabled people and would like to see the implementation of a monitoring commitee to see that legislation is met.
Do you think that there are specific issues relating to disability and accessibility that are different from those arising with regard to other aspects of equality and human rights, such as racial discrimination?
I think that the major difference is that issues relating to disability and accessability are often environmental, whereas other equality aspects such as those concerned with race or gender are social issues and (perhaps?) more difficult to overcome.
All Done for H806!
Yesterday I submitted my completed ECA for H806 ... that's my penultimate MAODE course completed. Woohoo! Now I can fully concentrate on H810. It's certainly interesting times!
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Activity 1.1 - Challenges for Disabled Students
Updated 23.09.08
Challenges common to all post-compulsory education :
- The decision to declare disability to the institution
- Dealing with failure of the institutions information infrastructure
- Written Communication (spelling, essay writing, note taking, expressing ideas)
- Verbal Communication (presentations, expressing needs/problems)
- Concentration (presentations, lectures, lengthy online media, lack of interactivity)
Challenges specific to campus-based courses
- Physical access to buildings or parts of buildings
- Moving around campus
- Transportation to campus
- Accommodation
- Access to assistance (human) and assistive technologies
Challenges specific to online learning
- Inaccessible content (inaccessible design/layout, inaccessible multimedia, non-compliant development)
- Alternative delivery of content (audio transcripts of visual content, text transcripts of audio content)
- Availability of assistive technologies
Challenges related to particular subjects or contexts.
- Use of specific equipment (e.g. scientific aparatus)
- Field Work (mobility issues)
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Activity 1.1 - Challenges for Disabled Students (Questions)
1. Disabled students are often encouraged to declare a disability so that they can receive appropriate support that might, among other things, help them to access online learning (e.g. training, assistive technologies).
2. What technology or technologies do you use most frequently (i.e. on a daily basis or more) to assist in your personal, work or social life; for example a calculator or satellite navigation?
4. How helpful do you think the metaphor of a ‘level-playing field’ is in:
- If a student declared a disability in your institution or work context today, what support would be offered to them?
As a main stream secondary education institution Learning Support staff are employed in addition to teachers to support students with specific learning difficulties. Physical impairment (visual, auditory, motor/dexterity) is less common and is dealt with on an individual basis for any student that requires additional support.
- What would be the costs and benefits to the student of accepting or using that support?
2. What technology or technologies do you use most frequently (i.e. on a daily basis or more) to assist in your personal, work or social life; for example a calculator or satellite navigation?
- How much help or support did you need or have to help you learn how to use this to its full potential?
3. Using the definitions of assistive technology provided in Chapter 3 and others that you come across in your reading, which of the following technologies would you consider to be an assistive technology and why?
- Mobile phone - Assistive Technology. At first I would have classed a mobile phone as primarily a communications technology, but with the increasing availability of internet access on phone handsets they are becoming multi-purpose mobile devices.
- A document folder placed on the desktop of a PC using the short-cut feature within Windows - Assistive Technology. It creates easy access to files which may otherwise have involved substantial navigation using a mouse.
- Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) - still thinking about this. I haven't ever really used one so I'm not sure if its an assistive technology or just a useful thing
- Google search engine - Google search engine makes searching for and retrieving information very easy. The results pages contain lists of links ... would this make it unfriendly for screen readers? Is it accessible? I would imagine it is but I am currently trying to find an accessibility statement or similar to confirm this in google's corporate information.
4. How helpful do you think the metaphor of a ‘level-playing field’ is in:
- persuading practitioners of the need for developing accessible elearning
- counteracting arguments against making adjustments for disabled learners on the grounds that it gives disabled learners an unfair advantage over non-disabled learners?
Activity 1.1 - Challenges for Disabled Students (Notes)
Resource 1 - Seale
Resource 2 - Skills for Access: Challenges to Learning
"There is a tendency to assume that 'disability' can be equated with a complete loss of one specific sensory, cognitive or physical ability. In fact, most people who encounter access barriers when trying to access on-line resources do so as a result of a combination of impairments of varying severity."
Resource 2 - Skills for Access: Challenges to Learning
"There is a tendency to assume that 'disability' can be equated with a complete loss of one specific sensory, cognitive or physical ability. In fact, most people who encounter access barriers when trying to access on-line resources do so as a result of a combination of impairments of varying severity."
- Visual difficulties
- Auditory difficulties
- Motor and/or manual dexterity difficulties
- Sensitivity to flashing or moving content
- Attention and concentration difficulties
- Memory and recall difficulties
- Language and comprehension difficulties
Resource 3 - Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education
Resource 4 - ‘Managing’ disability: early experiences of university students with disabilities
"From the 1970s onwards, however, the social model has been the guiding framework of disability theorists, increasingly representing disability as a form of social oppression, the appropriate response to which is one of civil rights rather than medical or social care."
"More recently, a more pluralistic approach has been called for. Williams (2001) argued that neither personal nor collective experiences of disability can be understood without recognition of both 'relational' definitions [...] and the 'property' definitions found in welfare and medical categorizations. "
"As late as the early 1990s the majority of British colleges and universities offered little systematic support to disabled students"
Identity matters - "Coming to university constitutes for many a big step in the process of forming an independent personal and social identity. Disabled students may have more complex sets of social relations to negotiate as part of this process than others (Borland & James, 1999). "
Disclosure - "Disclosure acts as a symbol of and repository for a complex nexus of issues and social relations and students had different approaches and attitudes to it. "
Extravisibility - "Students also had to actively manage their identity in terms of their 'extravisibility'. Students with disabilities can become 'invisible' if/when their needs are not met—they are disabled by the environment from full participation and 'disappear from view'. On the other hand, if and when they have to go out of their way to make their needs known they become 'extravisible' in a negative way. "
Emotional work - "The reference above to 'not kicking up a fuss' highlights the emotional work (Hochschild, 1983) students are obliged to undertake in managing their identities as people with a disability"
Being proactive - "Our data frequently contradicted notions of 'victimhood'. They featured students being proactive in accessing learning and teaching. Nevertheless, judgements about the degree of emotional work necessary to access their rights on occasion affected how proactive they felt able to be. Already facing physical and psychological hurdles, they often didn't have the energy to 'do battle'."
Transition into higher education - "If students with disabilities already have 'added bits' to manage in the transition from school to university, it was particularly unfortunate that for a number of those interviewed this transition had been fraught with difficulties. Special provision was not the most important factor for them in deciding which university to apply for [...] but some did explore in advance what kind of provision was available."
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
The Web Foundation
Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web. He's a director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) who are an organisation that determine web standards for compliant code. The W3C also have an Accessibility Initiative which provides accessibility guidelines for online content as well as practical advice and tools to help you achieve conformance.
This week Tim Berners-Lee launched The Web Foundation. Thier mission is :
This week Tim Berners-Lee launched The Web Foundation. Thier mission is :
- to advance One Web that is free and open,
- to expand the Web's capability and robustness,
- and to extend the Web's benefits to all people on the planet.
A different spin on accessibility than what we might initially think of ... financial and geographic accessibility rather than physical. Still, I thought it was worth making a note of.
Friday, 12 September 2008
Activity 2.5 - Models of Accessibillity
Medical Model (or Individual Model)
"Under the medical model, disabled people are defined by their illness or medical condition [...] The medical model promotes the view of a disabled person as dependent and needing to be cured or cared for, and it justifies the way in which disabled people have been systematically excluded from society. The disabled person is the problem, not society." (Making Your Teaching Inclusive, 2006)
Rehabilitation Model
"An offshoot of the medical model, which regards the disability as a deficiency that must be fixed by a rehabilitation professional or other helping professional" (Kaplan, 2000)
Social Model (or Disability Model)
"The social model has been developed by disabled people in response to the medical model and the impact it has had on their lives. Under the social model, disability is caused by the society in which we live and is not the ‘fault’ of an individual disabled person, or an inevitable consequence of their limitations. Disability is the product of the physical, organisational and attitudinal barriers present within society, which lead to discrimination. The removal of discrimination requires a change of approach and thinking in the way in which society is organised [...] The social model has been developed with the aim of removing barriers so that disabled people have the same opportunity as everyone else to determine their own life styles." (Making Your Teaching Inclusive, 2006)
Charity Model
"Ten to 15 years ago, this model was accused of portraying disabled people as helpless, sad and in need of care and protection. Such portrayals were argued to be perpetuating damaging stereotypes and misconceptions. More recently, charities have been using more positive images to portray (and thus define) disability" (Seale, 2006)
Administrative Model
"Administrative models of disability usually relate to specific areas of life such as education or employment and are used to assess whether or not people are eligible for certain benefits or compensation [...] critics of this model argue that disabled people rarely fit into the neat boxes that administrators provide. " (Seale, 2006)
Moral Model
"A moral model of disability [...] regards disability as the result of sin" (Kaplan, 2000)
"Under the medical model, disabled people are defined by their illness or medical condition [...] The medical model promotes the view of a disabled person as dependent and needing to be cured or cared for, and it justifies the way in which disabled people have been systematically excluded from society. The disabled person is the problem, not society." (Making Your Teaching Inclusive, 2006)
Rehabilitation Model
"An offshoot of the medical model, which regards the disability as a deficiency that must be fixed by a rehabilitation professional or other helping professional" (Kaplan, 2000)
Social Model (or Disability Model)
"The social model has been developed by disabled people in response to the medical model and the impact it has had on their lives. Under the social model, disability is caused by the society in which we live and is not the ‘fault’ of an individual disabled person, or an inevitable consequence of their limitations. Disability is the product of the physical, organisational and attitudinal barriers present within society, which lead to discrimination. The removal of discrimination requires a change of approach and thinking in the way in which society is organised [...] The social model has been developed with the aim of removing barriers so that disabled people have the same opportunity as everyone else to determine their own life styles." (Making Your Teaching Inclusive, 2006)
Charity Model
"Ten to 15 years ago, this model was accused of portraying disabled people as helpless, sad and in need of care and protection. Such portrayals were argued to be perpetuating damaging stereotypes and misconceptions. More recently, charities have been using more positive images to portray (and thus define) disability" (Seale, 2006)
Administrative Model
"Administrative models of disability usually relate to specific areas of life such as education or employment and are used to assess whether or not people are eligible for certain benefits or compensation [...] critics of this model argue that disabled people rarely fit into the neat boxes that administrators provide. " (Seale, 2006)
Moral Model
"A moral model of disability [...] regards disability as the result of sin" (Kaplan, 2000)
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Activity 2.4 - Defining Accessibility
How would you define ‘accessibility’?
I would define accessibility as the level to which any person (regardless of specific impairment) is able to interact with a specific object or service.
Who do you think is responsible for accessibility?
I would say that the provider of the service or the producer of the object would be ultimately responsible to ensure thier offering was accessibile. However that can probably only be achieved through a period of consultation with the stakeholders including end users.
What do you understand by accessibility in an educational context?
Accessibility in education would be removing any barriers to learning. These don't necessarily need to be physical impariment. They could be geographical, financial, social ...
What do you understand by accessibility in the context of online learning?
Accessibility in the context of online learning removes some of the barriers to traditional education such as geographical barriers, but in turn raises some different ones. In online learning accessibility would be about producing standards compliant materials and making available / increasing awareness of accessibility tools for online technologies.
Why is accessibility a concern today in your context or country?
To date it has not been too much of a concern in my context, although I anticipate it will become more of a concern in the future. I work in a secondary school which is only a few years old and still gaining reputation, however due to it's facilities and small class sizes it is increasingly attracting applications from students with impairments.
I would define accessibility as the level to which any person (regardless of specific impairment) is able to interact with a specific object or service.
Who do you think is responsible for accessibility?
I would say that the provider of the service or the producer of the object would be ultimately responsible to ensure thier offering was accessibile. However that can probably only be achieved through a period of consultation with the stakeholders including end users.
What do you understand by accessibility in an educational context?
Accessibility in education would be removing any barriers to learning. These don't necessarily need to be physical impariment. They could be geographical, financial, social ...
What do you understand by accessibility in the context of online learning?
Accessibility in the context of online learning removes some of the barriers to traditional education such as geographical barriers, but in turn raises some different ones. In online learning accessibility would be about producing standards compliant materials and making available / increasing awareness of accessibility tools for online technologies.
Why is accessibility a concern today in your context or country?
To date it has not been too much of a concern in my context, although I anticipate it will become more of a concern in the future. I work in a secondary school which is only a few years old and still gaining reputation, however due to it's facilities and small class sizes it is increasingly attracting applications from students with impairments.
Activity 2.2 - What Is Accessibility
I've just finished reading Chapter 1 and 2 of Seale, J. (2006) "E-Learning and Disability in Higher Education : Accessibility Research and Practice". Here are some observations :
Chapter 1 - Magic Fairies and Accessibility Dust talks about attitudes to accessibility and an ethos of buck-passing where responsibility when it comes to catering for the needs of disabled students. It seems that within institutions no-one seems particularly sure of who should be dealing with what, "[...] it can be very tempting to place all the responsibility for delivering accessible e-learning onto the shoulders of one person, usually the designer or developer." (p.1) Oh - that would be me then ;)
Chapter 2 - Disability and higher Education gives some good definitions of different models of disability, of which the social model seems to be that which is currently most favoured. "According to social models, impariment is an individual limitation while a disability is a socially imposed restriction." (P.12)
Interestingly, definitions of disability themselves can be exclusive in thier specifity e.g. conditions which are not long term (over twelve months) or do not fit neatly into a fixed set of categorisations may not be classed as an impariment. (P.14)
Chapter 1 - Magic Fairies and Accessibility Dust talks about attitudes to accessibility and an ethos of buck-passing where responsibility when it comes to catering for the needs of disabled students. It seems that within institutions no-one seems particularly sure of who should be dealing with what, "[...] it can be very tempting to place all the responsibility for delivering accessible e-learning onto the shoulders of one person, usually the designer or developer." (p.1) Oh - that would be me then ;)
Chapter 2 - Disability and higher Education gives some good definitions of different models of disability, of which the social model seems to be that which is currently most favoured. "According to social models, impariment is an individual limitation while a disability is a socially imposed restriction." (P.12)
Interestingly, definitions of disability themselves can be exclusive in thier specifity e.g. conditions which are not long term (over twelve months) or do not fit neatly into a fixed set of categorisations may not be classed as an impariment. (P.14)
Friday, 5 September 2008
Activity 1.3 - How does your own situation relate to accessibility?
I currently work as Web and ELearning Developer for a secondary school in the west midlands. The school was one of the first to be built as part of the UK governments City Academies program and has excellent facilities and ICT provision. I look after the school's website, intranet and so on but the majority of my time is concerned with the school's online curriculum. It's part of the schools mission statement that all of the curriculum should be accessible for students and their parents from home. As part of my online curriculum responsibilities I find and evaluate useful online tools and resources, and make them available to teaching staff. I produce multimedia online curriculum materials in collaboration with staff. This might be games, quizzes, videos, sounds, animation or presentations. I produce training materials for staff on technical processes for producing online curriculum materials and promote best practices for the creation of online content. I also provide technical support for the online curriculum content management software.
I don't currently have any contact with disabled students, however the school's facilities increasingly attracts applications from students with special needs. At the start of this academic year the intake included students who have visual imparement, hearing difficulties and physical disability. As a result I expect it will become increasingly important for me to develop my own understanding of accessibility for online learning and be able to communicate that to the school's teaching staff.
I already have some experience and understanding of online accessibility issues as I have built websites in accordance with the W3C web accessibility guidelines and I am looking forward to building on that during H810.
I don't currently have any contact with disabled students, however the school's facilities increasingly attracts applications from students with special needs. At the start of this academic year the intake included students who have visual imparement, hearing difficulties and physical disability. As a result I expect it will become increasingly important for me to develop my own understanding of accessibility for online learning and be able to communicate that to the school's teaching staff.
I already have some experience and understanding of online accessibility issues as I have built websites in accordance with the W3C web accessibility guidelines and I am looking forward to building on that during H810.
Connectivism & Connective Knowledge - Free Online Course
I've just subscribed to the rss feed for a new course - Connectivism & Connective Knowledge. It's interesting because it is free to participate and you only pay if you would like to recieve a qualification at the end of it. Had this come around earlier it would probably have really helped me write my ECA for H806 Learning in the Connected Economy (which may I add is currently giving me quite a headache).
In a professional context this is quite an exciting, not to mention slightly risky, business model ... I suppose it echoes the general Web2.0 trend for social practice, freedom of information, stick-it-to-the-man open source etc. etc. When you think about it the Web2.0 movement is a bit like the world wide web's equivalent of peace and love in the 1960s (or is that just me?)
Anyway, I wont be fully participating in the course but I will be keeping an eye on procedings ... to be fair I have already bit off quite as much as I can chew with H810 when H806 isn't even finished. That said I do now have my tutor details (Dr C Young) , and I can edit the wiki (problems were related to not being allocated a tutor) and I feel much happier knowing that everything is in place and ready to go.
In a professional context this is quite an exciting, not to mention slightly risky, business model ... I suppose it echoes the general Web2.0 trend for social practice, freedom of information, stick-it-to-the-man open source etc. etc. When you think about it the Web2.0 movement is a bit like the world wide web's equivalent of peace and love in the 1960s (or is that just me?)
Anyway, I wont be fully participating in the course but I will be keeping an eye on procedings ... to be fair I have already bit off quite as much as I can chew with H810 when H806 isn't even finished. That said I do now have my tutor details (Dr C Young) , and I can edit the wiki (problems were related to not being allocated a tutor) and I feel much happier knowing that everything is in place and ready to go.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Welcome to H810
In two days time I will start studying on my final course towards my MAODE ... H810 Accessible Online Learning. I am very excited at the prospect of completing my MA in a few months time. I have enjoyed all of it immensly but I have other things I want to get on with too, like some decorating at home and sorting out my abandoned garden.
H810 is going to be a new and interesting experience. It's the first presentation of the course so it's not the well oiled machine I have become used to but it's quite exciting in its own way. I don't have any information about my tutor group yet which is slightly worrying. I also can't edit the tutor group wiki. I was initially horrified to discover that the familiar first class forums of other H80x courses have been replaced by something different (Moodle forums I think, but I'm not sure) but I am already getting used to them and actually I think they are more user friendly. I've come across some familiar names in the forums so far, which is quite reassuring. I suppose I'm a bit of a MAODE veteran now so I'm bound to stumble across some old comrades :)
So, here's to the start of H810. The final chapter in my MAODE adventure.
H810 is going to be a new and interesting experience. It's the first presentation of the course so it's not the well oiled machine I have become used to but it's quite exciting in its own way. I don't have any information about my tutor group yet which is slightly worrying. I also can't edit the tutor group wiki. I was initially horrified to discover that the familiar first class forums of other H80x courses have been replaced by something different (Moodle forums I think, but I'm not sure) but I am already getting used to them and actually I think they are more user friendly. I've come across some familiar names in the forums so far, which is quite reassuring. I suppose I'm a bit of a MAODE veteran now so I'm bound to stumble across some old comrades :)
So, here's to the start of H810. The final chapter in my MAODE adventure.