Update
on the Living Article
Integrating
Accessible Design into the
Educational Web Design Process
Alan
Foley | Michael Lyman
Note
to Readers: This
article is a continuation of an article that began in Meridian's
Winter 2003 issue. If you are not already familiar with
this project, you may want to review the previous installments
before you begin reading this update.
|
|
Alan
Foley
I am excited people are reading
and responding to my article. I think this is a timely and important
issue for educators at all levels.
Jackie Gottlieb raises some
interesting points with regard to Universal Design (UD) in educational
web design and usability, but it is important to note that from a legal
and practical perspective UD and “Accessible” are two different
things. I do not want to split hairs by hashing out whether accessibility
is a component of usability or vice versa, or which one is more likely
to lead to the other, but I do want to reiterate some of the important
aspects of accessibility that can get lost in a discussion focusing
on broader terms like UD and usability.
The fact of the matter is
schools have a legal (and I would suggest moral) obligation to ensure
that web-based materials, be they WebQuests, school cafeteria menus,
PTA newsletters, grade systems, homework submission systems, or classroom
websites are accessible to individuals with disabilities. This legal
obligation comes in the form of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(the ADA) and, to some degree, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act. While the ADA does not stipulate explicit accessibility guidelines
like Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act, which applies to
federally funded entities (see original article for more information),
it does require schools to provide access.
Middle (and all public)
Schools are not currently held accountable in the legislation that has
specific accessibility standards like Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act1, but increasingly Section 508 and W3C standards are
being used to ensure ADA compliance. It is not difficult to envision
current legislation (e.g. IDEA, NCLB, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act) being revised to contain such specific guidelines for schools.
In the area of web design,
“accessible” has a very specific meaning. In the original
article, I refer to two bodies of standards, the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG), and Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act.
These are clearly defined standards, and “accessible” means
meeting the minimums of one of these standards (the 2 standards are
different – WCAG is generally considered to be more rigorous).
These standards have provisions for physical and cognitive disabilities.
These standards are carefully developed with input from the Assistive
Technology industry, software developers, web standards experts, academic
researchers, and scores of other experts (and I should note persons
with disabilities in every area). Because of this development process,
awareness of, and adherence to these guidelines ensures both the broadest
possible access and the clearest set of definitive practices.
When I say “accessible,”
I mean a page conforms to one of these bodies of standards. In light
of this, I must take exception to Ms. Gottlieb’s assertion, “…a
web page is accessible when users of all abilities can equitably access
the same information with no frustration.” It is not a question
of frustration. Indeed, many pages are frustrating regardless of the
user’s ability. It is a simple issue of access to content, and
some pages are constructed in ways that do not allow all users access
to that content. For example, if you do not have the Flash plugin installed
on your computer, you see no content delivered via Flash. Similarly
screen readers do not “read” Flash, therefore there is an
accessibility issue. Ms. Gottlieb is correct to note that usability
is an important issue, and I mention Flash because Flash often contributes
to usability issues as well2. Accessibility is always about
access to content. It is also important to note (as I did in my original
article) that “disability” is a fluid term; there are ranges
of disability and people experience disability differently.
Ms. Gottlieb is correct
to note that accessibility and usability are not interchangeable terms,
and that it is possible for a page that is accessible to not be usable.
In fact a common misperception about accessible web pages is that they
have to be plain, text only, or somehow scrubbed of any aesthetic element.
In reality, this notion is far from the truth. I agree with Ms. Gottlieb
that accessibility and usability need to be built into the design process.
I also agree that the concept of UD has much to offer the arena of educational
web design, Ms Gottlieb notes “Web designers usually do not consider
themselves having any disabilities so they may be unable to build a
site for all abilities. Therefore, the necessary skill to learn is “best
practice.” I would generally agree with her first assertion, but
I suggest that rather than try to learn a somewhat vague and subjective
set of “usability practices” to ensure access, designers
familiarize themselves with the accessibility standards stipulated by
the W3C and Section 508.
Footnotes
1 § 1194.22
of Section 508 specifies certain guidelines for web-based intranet and
Internet information and applications. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Web
2 For a good explanation
of this, see Jakob Nielsen’s critique of Flash http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
Michael
Lyman
WebAIM
Dr. Foley has written an
excellent article that helps to pinpoint the issue and importance of
Web accessibility in our society. It is wonderful to hear sound and
convincing reasoning behind the need for accessible and responsible
Web design. We are not just looking at accommodating those with disabilities
but rather it is for the greater good for all. I also am grateful that
Dr. Foley has addressed the issue by putting focus on how it affects
education, both post secondary and K-12 education.
Currently, one of the initiatives
that WebAIM is working on is a K-12 initiative. For the past year and
a half WebAIM has focused efforts on keeping Web accessibility in mind
in K-12 education through a grant from the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services. The goal is to improve the ability of students
with disabilities to access the Web-based components of the general
curriculum and by so doing create an accessible way for everyone, not
just students with disabilities but students, parents, grandparents,
etc. greater access and usability to any information or content that
might reside on the Web.
In my recent research and
efforts dealing with Web accessibility in K-12 education the amount
of disinterest, apathy, or perhaps lack of knowledge I notice in the
K-12 community is stunning. It seems that accessibility is an issue
that many have not addressed or even considered. In research and studies
done by WebAIM we learned that 97% of K-12 classrooms now have Internet
connections (Felix, 2002), 71% of students have used the Internet for
school projects (Pew, 2001), and 58% of students have used a Web site
specifically setup for a class or school (Pew, 2001). On the downside,
WebAIM conducted a study surveying school Web sites across the nation
in elementary and secondary education and found that only 6% of school
Web sites would pass the federal standard outlined by Section 508. The
accessibility of K-12 Web sites is what I would consider a national
disgrace.
As an example of how Web
accessibility is not considered I would like to share a personal experience.
I was teaching at a high-tech high school in California. All the teachers
were given laptops and students had greater access to computers with
Internet connections in labs and the classroom. Teachers received professional
development on how to use the Internet and other technologies in their
classrooms effectively for instruction. As a member of the technology
committee at that high school I was closely involved in the instructional
changes that occurred and I saw first hand the dramatic increase of
technology in the classroom, especially the Internet. I find this increased
use of the Internet in the classroom a breath of fresh air, yet Web
accessibility was not addressed. It wasn't even mentioned. Nobody even
thought about it or considered it an issue to be dealt with. I am scolding
myself because I was there, I participated in the policies and training
that we implemented and I knew nothing about Web accessibility at the
time. It wasn't because I didn't care, or because I thought it might
be too much work, but rather I simply did not know! Why is that? Why
is it that across the nation many have not even thought about Web accessibility
as they create school, district, and personal classroom Web sites? Is
it due to the fact that for years we've left it up to special education
to help accommodate students with disabilities? Perhaps, but I'm not
sure. Interestingly enough I see a movement away from the disinterest
and apathy and a greater understanding that accessibility on the Web
is not just for those with disabilities.
WebAIM is currently tackling
this problem with three general areas of focus. First, WebAIM is developing,
implementing, and evaluating a model that can be used effectively to
reform Web accessibility in K-12 education. Second, WebAIM is creating
a Web Accessibility Resource Planner (WARP). The WARP provides an easy
way for anyone who is teaching Web accessibility to quickly organize
curricular resources into an online resource. WebAIM has compiled dozens
of Web accessibility articles, handouts, simulations, videos, activities,
and other resources. The resource planner allows you to compile the
resources you want to use into an instructional Web site that students
can access at any time. You can even add your own resources to ours
to create an online accessibility curriculum for your course. The resource
planner is free to use and will be available by the end of March 2004.
Last of all WebAIM is launching an aggressive dissemination effort to
educate people about the issue. We feel that if educators know what
the issue is then they can act accordingly.
I find it of interest that
the No Child Left Behind Act does not address the issue of
Web accessibility. Are we not leaving behind students if we continue
to have poor Web design practices? If actions are not taken to remedy
the accessibility gap it will only proliferate into a larger problem
that will take more time and resources to solve in the future. The Internet
is here to stay. It will continue to grow in its use in K-12 education.
Web accessibility will not only allow access to Web content for students
with disabilities in the public education system but will create a better
Web environment for all users regardless of the technology they use
to access the information.
References
Felix, K. (2002) Netwatch.
Multimedia Schools, 9(1), 12.
Pew Internet and American
Life Project. (September 1, 2001). The Internet and Education: Finding
of the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Michael Lyman
WebAIM
6800 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-6800
435-797-8284
mike@webaim.org
|
