wai limitations

Web Accessibility: Limitations Of Conventional Approaches: 

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

Contents: 

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

Background: W3C WAI & WCAG: 

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

WAI Strengths: 

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

The WAI Model: 

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

Interpretation of WAI WCAG: 

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

Limitations of the WAI Model: 

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

Diversity - Content: 

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

Jordan’s Pleasure Principle: 

Jordan’s Pleasure Principle Even for informational resources, we may not always choose to make information readily accessible “Super Calli Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious!” Breaks draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines on “Content must be understandable” But brings a smile to many (but not all) Alternatives

Usability & Interoperability: 

Usability & Interoperability What about: Usability Interoperability Example: Long, application-specific URLs can cause accessibility/usability and interoperability problems Addition Problems: We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users) We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly) We don’t need to address usability The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done

Reflection On The Past: 

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

Reflection On The Present: 

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

The Future – WCAG 2.0?: 

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

Steven Downes’ Blog: 

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

Conclusions: 

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