This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Excellent additions to your institution’s library! Recommend these titles to your Librarian! To receive a copy of the Idea Group Publishing catalog, please contact (toll free) 1/800-345-4332, fax 1/717-533-8661,or visit the IGP Online Bookstore at: [http://www.idea-group.com]! Note: All IGP books are also available as ebooks on netlibrary.com as well as other ebook sources. Contact Ms. Carrie Stull at [[email protected]] to receive a complete list of sources where you can obtain ebook information or IGP titles.
Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching Tools Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................................... vii Part I: The Legal Implications of Web Accessibility Chapter I ......................................................................................................................... 1 Web Accessibility and the Law: Issues in Implementation Hully Yu, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Chapter II ..................................................................................................................... 25 Understanding Section 508 and Its Implications for Distance Education Mary Hricko, Kent State University—Geauga, USA Part II: Understanding Web Accessibility Guidelines Chapter III ................................................................................................................... 48 Strategies to Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education Barbara A. Frey, University of Pittsburgh, USA Ashli Molinero, University of Pittsburgh, USA Ellen R. Cohn, University of Pittsburgh, USA Chapter IV ................................................................................................................... 61 Text-Only Alternatives: Are They Right for Your Site? Jody Condit Fagan, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA Part III: Implementing Web Accessibility in Distance Education Chapter V .................................................................................................................... 83 Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide Sheryl Burghstahler, University of Washington, USA Chapter VI ................................................................................................................... 98 Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom: Courseware Design and Implementation Robert Luke, University of Toronto, Canada Laurie Harrison, University of Toronto, Canada
Chapter VII ................................................................................................................ 124 Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty Maggie Lynch, Portland State University, USA Patti DeWitz, Portland State University, USA Part IV: Studies in Application of Web Accessibility Chapter VIII ............................................................................................................... 145 Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools: 2002 Follow-Up Study Axel Schmetzke, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, USA Chapter IX ................................................................................................................. 190 Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education: A Case Study Amy Metcalfe, The University of Arizona, USA Part V: Reference Desk Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 209 Resources for Further Information Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 225 Selected Bibliography Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 241 Pull and Push: A Select Webliography of Products Serving Section 508 Alice Bedard-Voorhees, Community Colleges of Colorado Online, USA Glossary .................................................................................................................... 249 About the Authors ..................................................................................................... 258 Index ........................................................................................................................ 262
i
Preface INTRODUCTION TO WEB ACCESSIBILITY In April 1997, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) organized the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) “to promote accessibility in five areas: technology, guidelines, tools, education and outreach, and research and development.” One of the projects coordinated by WAI established the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to serve as the recommended standards for the design of accessible Web documents. Since these standards have not yet been mandated as the legal protocol for Web design, it has been rather challenging to convince various groups of people that Web accessibility is a matter of importance. One reason for this challenge is that Web accessibility is hard to define; it is a dynamic construct having different meanings for different people. Some people believe that Web accessibility is a disability issue. Advocates for the disabled have actively promoted this opinion, and most of the literature written about Web accessibility seems to support this general view. Still others see Web accessibility as a crucial element in the development of universal design. Universal design refers to “the design of products and environments [that are] usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation” (Center for Universal Design). When Web pages do not adhere to the principles of universal design, they tend to be very difficult to navigate. Almost each of us can recall a situation where we have had some challenge in trying to retrieve information from a Web site. Finally, others consider Web accessibility a disparity issue. Those of us who cannot afford state of the art computers or the latest version of software may have difficulty gaining access to graphic-intensive Web pages, because they are designed with scripted code that does not work well with older versions of browsers. For the average computer user, this situation can lead to challenges in Web accessibility. Web accessibility also is important for technology. Search engine robots that are text-only and support HTML 2.0 cannot access graphic-rich Web sites or sites that hide content in images. In his study on the “deep Web,” Michael Bergman (2001) found that traditional surface Web sites are fraught with many quality problems. Of the sample Bergman examined, “45% of existing Web sites were half finished, meaningless, or trivial.” Bergman’s study also revealed that most traditional search engines could not even retrieve materials from dynamically charged Web sites, most of which include subject-specific databases and multiple thread technology. Since “the deep Web is the largest growing category of new informa-
ii tion on the Internet,” individuals who rely on the Internet for the latest information and research should be concerned about their inability to access this material (Bergman, par. 5). Another reason why people do not really understand the importance of Web accessibility is that only recently, the standards of implementation for Web accessibility have been enforced. In June 2001, Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was put into effect to ensure that federal employees with disabilities have equitable access to electronic and information technology. As a result, many people in the private sector are confused as to how the legislation applies to them. Already, this legislation has had far-reaching implications for business and industry and educational institutions that receive funding from the federal government, but until the requirements of Section 508 are enforced more consistently, most people will continue to disregard their responsibility for compliance. Since the compliance to Web accessibility is not regulated, people who are aware of the guidelines will still make excuses for ignoring the standards. Some Web designers argue that having to learn new code for the design requirements will take too much time. This rationale is foolish, because there are several applications that will generate the code into the document. For example, there exists a freeware program called the “alt” generator that allows Web designers to describe their images up to 500 characters. The “alt” tag is generated when the designer moves a mouse over the image on a page. In addition, the various tags associated with Web accessibility are easy to use within the structure of traditional HTML coding. Web-accessible tags are created to complement, not deconstruct, existing code. Still, there are some people who will insist that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are too restrictive. Some Web designers think that if they have to follow Web accessibility guidelines their pages won’t “look good,” but if the information on their pages cannot be accessed, no one will be looking at anything. The truth is that the WAI guidelines do not direct us to create only text-based Web documents; these guidelines demonstrate ways in which we can design pages that will be accessed more effectively. And for those of us actively involved in the creation of Web documents, this objective should be a top priority. EXISTING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION Currently, most of the literature on Web accessibility is found in journal literature and electronic resources. The W3C has published several online documents and materials to assist in the development and use of the WAI standards for Web accessibility, and most disability organizations have published similar documents that provide additional information on the WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. At present, three books that provide detailed analysis of Web accessibility
iii issues include: Michael Paciello’s Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities, Barbara Mates’s Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible to All and Tom McNulty’s Accessible Libraries on Campus: A Practical Guide for the Creation of Disability-Friendly Libraries. These texts serve as foundations for gaining an understanding on why Web accessibility is important and offer a wide scope of resources and references for further assistance. Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching Tools builds upon the existing foundation of information on Web accessibility by providing further discussion and research on topics associated with this issue. The book serves as a resource for anyone interested in learning more about applications of Web accessibility in distance education and the importance of adapting Web accessibility practices in the design of Web-enabled teaching tools. It provides practical information, an extensive collection of resources, and useful suggestions on how to create more accessible Web documents. In addition, the contributors in this project are actively involved in the research of Web accessibility issues and can be considered expert resources on this topic. Their research, insights, and recommendations for developing implementation plans for Web accessibility initiatives should be useful to administrators and business leaders assigned to coordinate the development of equitable resources in electronic and information technology. Some of the contributors even discuss their own experiences in the design and implementation of Web accessibility at their institutions to offer models of practices for readers to consider. TOPICS OF DISCUSSION Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching Tools is organized into five sections that each focus on a current issue in Web accessibility. The sections of the book are arranged in somewhat of a logical progression, beginning with an explanation of the laws associated with Web accessibility and ending with current research and application of the standards. The organization of the book leads readers through a progression of issues and discussions, all designed to make people more aware as to why Web accessibility is an important matter of concern. Part One addresses “The Legal Implications of Web Accessibility.” In this section, Holly Yu examines “Web Accessibility and the Law: Issues of Implementation” and I discuss “Understanding Section 508 and Its Implications for Distance Education.” Holly Yu’s discussion begins with an overview of the emergence of Web accessibility and discusses what constitutes universal accessible design. Yu provides a detailed analysis of the existing legislation and the Office of Civil Rights rulings related to accessible Web design along with definitions of the
iv legislative jargon often associated with Web accessibility laws and regulations. Following this discussion, Yu explains why barriers in implementation of Web accessibility laws exist and what should be done to improve application of the standards. Recommendations and suggestions regarding ways to encourage policy development and training are given. This chapter also provides a list of resources and tools for developing more accessible Web design. In the second chapter, I examine how the passage of Section 508 will inevitably impact higher education, specifically in the area of distance education. I begin with a general discussion of the mandate and attempt to show how this legislation has already begun to yield implications for higher education. After this discussion, I review the technical provisions of the standards of Section 508 that specifically relate to technologies in the following distributed learning formats: videoconferencing, Web-assisted/Web-based instruction and computer-mediated instruction, which involves the use of courseware products. Suggestions on what educators and administrators need to do in preparation for Section 508’s application to distance education are also given. Part Two of the book,”Understanding Web Accessibility Guidelines” offers an examination of the WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and their application. In “Strategies to Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education,” Barbara Frey, Ashli Molinaro and Ellen R. Cohn address the current status on Web accessibility and usability in higher education and provide a comprehensive review of the WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The authors explain and provide several illustrations to demonstrate how to use the guidelines in creating an accessible Web document. These illustrations and examples are designed to help readers understand how to apply and use accessible code. The chapter includes a list of resources for reference in developing Webaccessible pages. Jody Condit-Fagan’s “Text-Only Alternatives: Are They Right for Your Site?” offers a detailed discussion on developing text-only alternatives for Web documents. Fagan begins her discussion by explaining the difference between “textonly” Web pages and “text-equivalents” created for Web pages. She then demonstrates through a series of examples how Web developers can write accessible code for common nontext features found in a Web site. Her discussion is presented in such a way that even if you are unfamiliar with HTML code, you will understand how to apply the specific tags to create the desired text-equivalents. Following this section, Fagan provides a review of a variety of text-only applications and browsers. She closes with a discussion of emerging technologies and future research underway. In Part Three of the book, the focus is on “Implementing Web Accessibility in Distance Education.” Sheryl Burghstahler introduces the subject in “Web-Based
v Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide.” In this chapter, Burghstahler reveals the failure of distance education programs to comply with ADA standards. Students with disabilities who attempt to enroll in distance learning courses are met with additional challenges, and what Burghstahler refers to as a “second digital divide.” Burghstahler notes that there exists only limited research on the applicability of accessibility standards in distance education programming. For this reason, she presents a discussion on how distance education administrators can respond to the needs of students with disabilities who may enroll in distance learning courses. Burgstahler offers suggestions for implementation, including polices and guidelines for improving assistance and support for students with disabilities. She outlines some of the accessibility issues that may arise in specific distributed learning formats and concludes with a list of recommended sources and materials for further reference. In Chapter 6, Robert Luke and Laurie Harrison in “Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom: Courseware Design and Implementation” investigate the level of accessibility in several common courseware tools used in Web-based instruction. In this study, they examine the types of challenges people with different kinds of disabilities experience when they use the selected courseware products. In the discussion of the results, Luke and Harrison suggest ways in which instructors and courseware designers can improve the accessibility of these products. A review of the WAI’s Web Authoring Guidelines is also provided, and recommendations for courseware developers are given. The authors also discuss some of the ways in which courseware developers have modified their products to enhance accessibility. Finally, to conclude this section, Maggie Lynch and Patti DeWitz in “Webbased Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty” present a study on what accommodations need to be made to enable blind or visually impaired (BVI) faculty to teach Web-assisted/Web-based courses. In this study, Lynch and DeWitz reveal the challenges in gaining support from distance education administrators and finding technical support staff willing to provide training on the use of the courseware. DeWitz offers her own testimony in her experiences teaching with WebCT. The study reveals the challenges associated with the design, development, and delivery of the distance-learning course from the perspective of a BVI instructor. Lynch and DeWitz also offer a series of recommendations for courseware designers on how to improve their products for people with disabilities. A review of resources and materials for future reference is also listed. Part Four, “Studies in Application of Web Accessibility,” includes research conducted by Axel Schmetzke: “Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools: 2002 Follow-Up Study” and Amy Metcalfe “Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education: A Case Study.”
vi Both studies provide an understanding of why it is important to implement Web accessibility in academic settings, but can serve as models of practice for other institutions. Schmetzke’s study is a follow-up review of his previous research on the implementation of the Web accessibility standards in libraries and library schools. In his study, Schmetzke examines the range of accessibility found in the Web pages for the main library and the institution’s library school using the validation tool “Bobby” created by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). Schmetzke provides a very detailed discussion on the use and limitations of this evaluation tool, citing examples of “false-positive” error-free findings that can occur. In the discussion of his findings, Schmetzke identifies the challenges libraries face in developing Web content that is accessible, but argues that institutions have fallen short in developing projects or programs that make library science graduates more aware of the issues. He closes his chapter by making recommendations for future research and development to promote awareness of Web accessibility issues. Metcalfe’s study offers discussion of the Web accessibility implementation plan developed at the University of Arizona to ensure the development of more accessible documentation consistent through the university’s academic and service departments. Metcalfe begins with a detailed discussion of the challenges associated with the coordination of a campus-wide implementation plan and discusses how to overcome administrative and “cultural” barriers. As she takes us the process, she offers advice and lessons learned from the experience. Although this discussion focuses on an implementation plan in a university setting, Metcalfe’s model can easily be adapted to other organizations and institutions involved in similar initiatives. The last section of the book, Part Five, is a “Reference Desk” for additional information. In Appendix A, a list of organizations and additional contacts for further resources are listed. This list includes educational centers, government agencies, organizations, associations, and other nonprofit agencies involved in the promotion of Web accessibility and the design of Web-enabled teaching tools. Appendix B offers a selected bibliography of material for further review. This bibliography includes the listings documented by each of the contributors as well as additional resources such as Web publications. The last section of the book, “Pull and Push: A Select Webliography of Products Serving Section 508,” was compiled by Alice Bedard-Voorhees. In her review, Bedard-Voorhees offers a descriptive analysis of Section 508 product categories with intent to highlight features that can assist current learners in formulating appropriate questions with vendors to save time in the purchase of compliant hardware and software. The book also includes a general glossary for some of the terms and concepts described in the chapters and references.
vii CONCLUSION The primary objective in the creation of Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching Tools is to make people more aware of the implications of Web accessibility issues. This book serves as an impetus to promote additional research and development in the field of Web accessibility, and I challenge educators, graduate students and other interested parties to continue investigations into this subject and engage in more studies that will promote the need for Web accessibility. As the multifaceted of the World Wide Web continues to emerge, it is imperative that Web designers and those responsible for coordinating the development of Web-based projects consider the importance of Web accessibility planning and implementation. Those of us who are involved in promoting education must consider our own practices in the creation of Web-accessible documents and begin to regard accessibility as a key component toward enhancing the quality of our instruction. We all realize that the force of the World Wide Web can be amazing and that it has yet to reach its potential, but the Web can only become more powerful and go beyond its limitations only if we always remember to advocate ways to make it completely accessible. REFERENCES Bergman, M. (2001). The deep Web: Surfacing hidden value. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 7(1). East Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press. (White Paper) Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/0701/bergman.html. Center for Universal Design. (2001). Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http:// www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/ud.htm. Mates, B. (2000). Adaptive technology for the Internet: Making electronic resources accessible to all. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. McNulty, T. (1999). Accessible Libraries on Campus. A Practical Guide for the Creation of Disability Friendly Libraries. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, ALA. Paciello, M. (2000). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (1999a). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAIWEBCONTENT/.
viii
Acknowledgments When I first accepted the invitation to complete this project, I really did not know where the journey of editing a book would take me. However, from the first moment on, I received continuous support and guidance from Dr. Mehdi Knosrowpour and his staff at Idea Group Publishing. I would like to thank Dr. Knosrowpour for his belief that my prospectus was worthy for publication. His enthusiasm for the project motivated me throughout the process. I would also like to thank Michele Rossi, my Development Editor who tolerated my incessant emails of queries and comments regarding the status of the project. She kept the project on schedule and I appreciate her patient reminders of all our deadlines. She was also very supportive and helpful throughout the process. A very special thanks goes to all of the authors for their excellent contributions to this book. I have learned so much from their insights and research and appreciate their commitment to participate in this project. It has been a privilege for me to work with each of them. I value our collaboration and hope that we all can continue to work together to promote further research and understanding of Web-accessibility issues. I would also like to thank the reviewers of the chapters, specifically, my dear friend and colleague Dr. Renate Prescott who assisted me with the final review of the entire manuscript. Dr. Prescott proved to be a constructive editor and ally throughout the process. I value her perspective and appreciate her willingness to help me whenever I ask. She is a good colleague, a great friend, and the sister I wish I had. Special thanks goes to my friends and colleagues at Kent State University Geauga for their support and encouragement throughout the project, specifically, Louise Senra and Shelley Marshall. Louise Senra, the Coordinator of Disability Services at our campus, offered me many suggestions regarding the resources I should include for the appendices. Her dedication and commitment to students with disabilities will always be an inspiration to me. Shelley Marshall, our Network Systems Administrator, provided a great deal of insight to understanding the types of technologies used by students with disabilities. Shelley’s understanding of special needs students and willingness to find innovative ways to help them is amazing. I have learned so much from her and I appreciate her willingness to share her knowledge.
ix To the Geauga Campus Library staff: Kim Cook, Laurel Purdum, Carrie Butcher, and Jessie Butcher, I appreciate their support and assistance. My staff members not only helped me in checking and typing resources, citations, and hyperlinks, but they also searched for additional resources and information needed in the appendices. Most importantly, they went out of their way to make my life easier during the course of this project, and I thank them for that. A special thanks also goes to Tom McNulty of New York University. As the Editor-in-Chief of the Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, Tom was the very first person to post a “Call for Papers” for the project. His action brought me into contact with several people eager to support this project, including two of the authors. I appreciate his thoughtfulness and thank him for his encouragement and advice. I value Tom’s research on making libraries more accessible and also, his indefinite extension of the paper I have promised to write him for his journal. Special thanks goes also to all the staff and publishing team at Idea Group Publishing, whose contributions throughout the process of this project made me understand the value of collaboration and teamwork. The ongoing professional support from the editorial staff at Idea Group Publishing made this project feasible. I appreciate the work that everyone did to make this publication possible. To my parents, I thank them for showing me the importance of being considerate to others. Through their actions, they made me understand why we should always find ways to help people. The seeds of this project grew out of the values they taught me. To my four older brothers, Dan, John, Tom, and Rick, I cherish each of them for their support and the sense of strength they give me. Maybe now, they won’t tease me anymore. Last, but never least, I must express my love and deepest regard for my husband, Tom. For almost a year, Tom had to live with mountains of papers, books, and notebooks for this project all over our house. He has now become a new expert on Web accessibility. I am very grateful for his patient understanding and sense of humor. I love him dearly. I also love our two little boys, Andrew and Thomas. Editor, Mary Hricko Lordstown, OH, USA March 2002
x
Dedication One isn’t necessarily born with courage, but one is born with potential. Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can’t be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest. Anonymous This book is dedicated to the memory of Abraham J. Zelmanowitz. Abraham Zelmanowitz was the man who chose to remain with his friend and disabled coworker Edward F. Beyea on the 27th floor of Tower 1 during the World Trade Center Disaster. Both men perished when the building collapsed. The image of such friendship should be a lesson to all of us.
Part I The Legal Implications of Web Accessibility
Web Accessibility and the Law 1
Chapter I
Web Accessibility and the Law: Issues in Implementation Holly Yu California State University, Los Angeles, USA
ABSTRACT Through a series of federal and state laws and standards, the legal foundation concerning Web accessibility that impact people with disabilities and their ability to fully overcome digital barriers and participate in the Web environment has been established. Currently, the concept of accessible design or universal design is increasingly becoming an important component of Web design. However, the unanswered questions in laws, the absence of the obligation in fulfilling legal requirements, and the general unawareness of the need to make Web pages accessible have created barriers in implementing the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1998, and others. In many cases, the absence of obligations is due to unfamiliarity with legal responsibility of creating accessible Web sites. As a result, the response to Web accessibility concerns frequently comes about only on an ad hoc basis. Identifying these barriers is the first step toward solutions. There are legal and practical approaches for addressing Web accessibility issues in policies, education, research and development, and technology and tools.
Web-based interfaces. Library Web sites have been evolving into information gateways that provide access to library services and resources, including electronic databases, library catalogs, research tools and the Internet. These developments have opened the door to unprecedented numbers of library users. While computer technologies have the tremendous potential to broaden the lives and increase the independence of people with disabilities, as technology has grown more sophisticated, many features that have generally made computer usage easier for nondisabled people have often created barriers for people with disabilities. In recent years, there has been a growing body of significant laws and standards concerning Web accessibility that impact people with disabilities and their ability to fully overcome digital barriers and participate in the Web environment. However, the unanswered questions in laws and the absence of obligations in fulfilling legal requirements among institutions have created barriers in trying to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1998, and others. In many cases, the absence of obligations is due to unfamiliarity with legal responsibility of creating accessible Web sites. Compounding these problems has been the lack of significant institutional enforcement mechanisms. In turn, the response to Web accessibility concerns frequently come about only on an ad hoc basis. However, there are ways of breaking down these barriers to a fuller accessibility implementation, such as including education sessions to raise awareness of Web accessibility, nationwide policy and system-wide guidelines for accessibility, and Web-based applications and tools to facilitate Web accessibility, to name a few.
LITERATURE REVIEW There have been numerous articles and handbooks concerning and discussing how to design ADA–compliant Web sites. While these publications vary in length and sophistication, they tend to focus on how to design ADA compliant Web sites following the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Few of these publications address barriers that prevent these guidelines from being fully implemented. From the Web developers’ perspective, the basis for the implementation of these guidelines is whether we understand the legal mandates and obligations. This situation is noted by the ADA Assembly, Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies of ALA. It acknowledged that ten years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, “we’re lagging in the area of library services for people with disabilities” (ADA Assembly, ALA, 2000). However, this absence is understandable, since the Web accessibility issue did not become prominent legal mandate until 1996,
Web Accessibility and the Law 3
when the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an opinion statement directly addressing Web accessibility.
Emergence of the Accessible Design Axel Schmetzke, who has been instrumental in the study of Web accessibility, indicates that universally accessible Web design did not begin to receive coverage as a theme in the library literature until five years ago. Before and around the mid1990s, the topic was mainly covered in “rather tightly knit presentations, white papers, and Web posted articles,” such as, “Making the Web accessible for the blind and visually impaired” and “World Wide Web accessibility for people with disabilities, A usability perspective” given at the 1995 WWW4 Conference (2001b, p. 39). By the mid-1990s, Web accessibility discussion was focusing on adaptive technology (Lucas Walling & Irwin, 1995), and Web content accessibility design was not addressed. If we consider that the Web was mainly a text-based interface by the mid-1990s, it is only logical that design-related accessibility issues had not surfaced. By 1996, universally accessible Web design appeared as an issue in the professional library literature. Michael Paciello who serves as the W3C’s disabilities guest editor and the author of Webable online services, published two articles in Florida Libraries titled “Making the Web accessible for the deaf, hearing, and mobility impaired” (1996a) and “Making the World Wide Web accessible for the blind and visually impaired” (1996b). The articles address Web accessibility issues for blind and visually impaired as well as for hearing and mobility impaired. In the past three years, we have seen more publications in library-related journals that go beyond addressing universal Web design. These publications focus on tips and techniques of designing accessible Web sites, explanation of laws concerning Web accessibility, and efforts in raising awareness of the understanding that accessible Web design is a legal mandate. For example, Paciello’s book Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities (2000) exclusively addresses the accessibility issue from a broad legal perspective to detailed design techniques. Mark Pearrow (2000) in his book Web Site Usability Handbook, emphasizes that accessibility is an essential component of usability, and “accessibility must become a standard procedure for all Web sites in the same way that wheelchair access” (p. 183).
Concept of Accessible Design According to W3C’s Guidelines, the concept of universally accessible Web design encompasses two areas of concern: ensuring graceful transformation and making content understandable and navigable. Graceful transformation is concerned with ensuring that content will remain intact regardless of the presence of any
4 Yu
constraints. In other words, one should not design a Web page that works only if the user has Flash installed, JavaScript enabled, wider bandwidth, fastest connection, and the latest browsers. The second area, to make content understandable and navigable, refers to making the language clear and simple, and providing understandable mechanisms for navigating within and between pages. Providing understandable navigation mechanisms overlaps with the domain of usability. John Lescher (2000) indicates “good accessibility means full content available when one or more senses are not being used” (p.14). Casey (1999) also addresses the notion that Web accessibility is an integral part of overall Web design. She suggests that accessibility has to be built into the Web site itself. Anders and Fechtner (1999) denounce that universal design attempts to meet the needs of all people, and includes those of all ages, physical abilities, sensory abilities, and cognitive skills. Since it includes all types of people in the design process, abilities are emphasized, and disabilities are de-emphasized. While usability testing is gaining popularity as a means of improving the functionality of a Web site, accessibility testing has not emerged as a component in the usability studies in general. This situation is reflected in the library literature. However, there are a few exceptions. In their article “Usability testing and students with disabilities: Achieving universal access on a library Web site,” Suzanne Byerley and Mary Beth Chambers (2001) summarize the accessibility tests conducted at the library of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and state the importance of conducting accessibility testing: “it is imperative that librarian and teaching faculty learn about accessibility issues. It is our responsibility to assure that this principle of accessible Web design is applied to library services and Web-based courses” (p. 304).
Techniques of Designing Universally Accessible Web Design techniques including implementation and testing procedures have been the center of attention in professional library literature in recent years. Paciello (1997), in his article “People with disability can’t access the Web,” concludes that inaccessibility in Web design involves complex notation, image rendering, multimedia features and navigation. There are numerous articles explaining W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, notably, “Accessibility in the virtual library” (Casey, 1999), “Guidelines on Web accessibility for the disabled” (Jobe, 1999), “Universal access, the ADA, and your library Web page” (Blake, 2000), etc. Blake summarizes 14 major categories for accessible Web design from W3C’s 14 primary areas and 64 specific check points. These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using images and video, but rather explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience. Lescher (2000) urges
Web Accessibility and the Law 5
Web developers to start their designs by understanding and using the W3C’s design guidelines, thereby creating an accessible site. The emerging awareness about needs and techniques for accessible Web design in the recent library literature, “has not yet manifested itself in the actual design of library Web pages” (Schmetzke, 2001b, p. 39). The primary obstacles in hindering this process lie in the unanswered questions existing in laws, the lack of a national Web accessibility policy, absence of the obligation in fulfilling legal mandates and unaddressed barriers in the implementation process.
LEGAL MANDATE FOR WEB ACCESSIBILITY The notion of access to information involving the civil rights of people with or without disabilities arises from the fact that access to information through technology has increasingly become a necessary tool for success and the source of opportunity in education and employment. This legal foundation has been established through a series of federal and state laws and court decisions. However, Web accessibility did not become prominent until 1996, when the Department of Justice responded to Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the author of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), when he inquired on behalf of one of his constituents regarding Web page compatibility for the blind and other people with disabilities. The Justice Department responded as follows: Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well. The Internet is an excellent source of information and, of course, people with disabilities should have access to it as effective as people without disabilities (DOJ, 1996). This response undoubtedly involved understanding to what extent the ADA requires Web pages to be accessible to people with disabilities. The DOJ’s ruling explains how the mandate for “effective communication” in ADA should apply to Web pages and Web design. It also opened the door for interpretation of accessibility claims against commercial Web sites. Accordingly, under the provisions of laws, some of the legal milestones that have direct
6 Yu
impact on Web accessibility are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ADA of 1990, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities; requires assistive technology and services to people with disabilities; and mandates program accessibility, and effective communication with people who have hearing or vision disabilities (Section 504, 1973). As indicated in The Accessible Future by the National Council on Disability (NCD), Section 504 not only was the first statute applying civil rights protections to people with disabilities, but it also “furnished the model for major subsequent enactments, including the ADA. From the outset, coverage under Section 504 included antidiscrimination and reasonable accommodation requirements in connection with access to information” (NCD, 2001). Section 504 is the first law to impose requirements to entities that receive federal aid for access for persons with disabilities. Accompanying regulations are set forth at 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 104.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 The ADA requires public facilities and public services to be accessible. The ADA is civil rights legislation. Title II of the ADA requires that state and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities, such as public education, employment, transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting and town meetings. This section includes higher education institutions and libraries. State and local governments are also required to communicate effectively with people who have hearing, vision or speech disabilities. The ADA, including those that apply to the private sector, mandates for “effective communication, reasonable accommodations, and auxiliary aides and services” (ADA, 1990). Section 202, Title II indicates that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity” (ADA, 1990). Title II recognizes the special importance of communication, which includes access to information, in its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R § 35.160(a). The regulation requires that a public entity must take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with persons with disabilities are as effective as communications with persons without disabilities.
Web Accessibility and the Law 7
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 Congress passed the original Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in 1986. The section was amended in 1992 and again in 1998. The amended Section 508 of 1998 establishes requirements for electronic and information technology developed, maintained, procured or used by the federal government. Section 508 “defines the processes used by the federal government to procure electronic and information technology” (Paciello, 2000). It also imposes strict accessibility requirements for electronic and information technology to be accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public. By its terms, Section 508’s application is limited to federal agencies and departments only (Section 508, 1998).
CURRENT LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT Additional Federal Government Regulations As part of the Section 508 enforcement effort, on April 2, 1999, the Department of Justice directed that all federal agencies conduct self-evaluations of their electronic and information technology and report by June 15, 1999, the extent to which their electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities. To create this report, the Department of Justice collected objective survey data from 81 agencies, including over 250 components. The result was the report presented by the Attorney General to the president of the United States, Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility (DOJ, 2000). The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division prepared this report. It contains the results of the first Executive Branchwide section 508 evaluation. It also recommends specific inexpensive, costeffective and easily accomplishable measures to improve the extent to which federal agencies’ technology is accessible to people with disabilities. By following these recommendations, agencies will facilitate their compliance with the general nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation requirements of Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, the report is intended to provide guidance to: • Federal information technology personnel, policy makers and procurement officials • Private sector technology designers, manufacturers and vendors • Disability advocates (DOJ, 2000, Executive Summary & Recommendations section).
8 Yu
In summarizing the survey, the report states that the majority of the federal agencies respond only on an ad-hoc basis to individual requests for accommodation. It also indicates that the most significant challenge by Section 508 is the need for coordination between those with technological expertise and those with knowledge of disability access issues. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking containing draft accessibility standards to implement Section 508. 65 Fed. Reg. 17346 on March 31, 2000. On December 21, 2000, the standards were finalized and issued. These standards have been folded into the Federal government’s procurement regulations, namely, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to which most agencies are subject. Agencies not covered by the FAR will incorporate the Access Board’s Section 508 Standards into their own procurement regulations. Final FAR Rule for Implementing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities was published in the Federal Register April 25, 2001. Under these standards, the federal government is in the forefront in ensuring access to electronic and information technology. The standards define means of disseminating information, including computers, software and electronic office equipment. They provide criteria for what makes these products accessible to people with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing and mobility impairments (Access Board, 2000). The scope of Section 508 and the Access Board’s standards are limited to the Federal sector. Scott Tillett (2002) points out that the federal government, although not requiring the private sector to comply with Section 508, is using its buying power to influence how vendors develop products. Therefore, he concludes “as a result, the accessible technology developed for the government will flow into the private sector” (p. 2).
Rulings of Office for Civil Rights, the Department of Education The United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), is responsible for ensuring that all educational institutions comply with the requirements of all federal civil rights laws, including Section 504 and Title II of the ADA. The opinions of OCR are generally considered to be authoritative by the courts in interpreting the requirements of these laws. A typical example of legal developments is provided by the higher education institutions in the state of California. In the last five years or so, there have been significant legal opinions coming out of the OCR due to several complaints against higher education institutions in California filed by students with disabilities in the areas of inaccessible distance education courses; failing to provide access to library resources, campus publications, and open
Web Accessibility and the Law 9
computer laboratories; inadequate training on adaptive computer technology and computer test-taking. In addressing these concerns, the rulings from the OCR to these higher education institutions can be summarized under the following three areas: effective communication, response on an ad-hoc basis and undue burden. Effective Communication. OCR stated that the three basic components of effective communication include: “timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual with the disability” (OCR, 1996). OCR has repeatedly explained that the term “communication” in this context means the transfer of information, including (but not limited to) the verbal presentation of a lecturer, the printed text of a book and the resources of the Internet. In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, OCR further states that Title II requires that a public college shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with a disability (28 C.F.R. § 35.160[b]). In applying these rules to a case involving access to materials in a college library, OCR comments that when looking at exactly which of its resources a library is obligated to provide in an accessible medium, the short answer is any resources the library makes available to nondisabled patrons must be made accessible to blind patrons. This includes the library catalog(ue), the archived microfiche, daily newspapers and the Internet (if this is a service provided to sighted patrons). “A categorical decision by a public library not to even consider a request by a patron for a particular alternative format is in most instances a violation of Title II” (OCR, 1997). Response on an Ad-Hoc Basis. A public entity violates its obligations under the ADA when it only responds on an ad-hoc basis to individual requests for accommodation. OCR indicates that there is an affirmative duty to develop a comprehensive policy in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or services. OCR further points out that “recognized good practice in establishing such a comprehensive policy is to consult with the disability community, especially those members most likely to request accommodations” (OCR, 1997). Undue Burden. In explaining “undue burden,” OCR states that when an entity selects software programs and/or hardware equipment not adaptable for people with disabilities, “the subsequent substantial expense of providing access is not generally regarded as an undue burden when such cost could have been significantly reduced by considering the issue of accessibility at the time of the initial selection” (OCR, 1997). The scope of civil rights laws has shown steady growth since 1973, when Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act became the first law to impose requirements for access for persons with disabilities on recipients of federal funding. The
10 Yu
Department of Justice’s ruling in 1996 firmly established the legal foundation as to what extent the mandates for accessibility in ADA apply to Web sites. Denial of access and unequal treatment are defined as violations of the civil rights law.
BARRIERS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW It is indisputable that the current problems encountered in the implementation of accessible Web design do not just stem from design issues, nor are they because of a lack of laws, regulations and government-related standards, although there are unanswered questions in that the laws create difficulty in the implementation process. The current problems we are facing are the absence of an obligation to fulfill legal requirements and by not being aware that ensuring resource accessibility is a legal mandate. There have not been cohesively developed system-wide guidelines, and there is little way to enforce their adoption. Many Web developers have not focused on the extent to which their Web pages are accessible to people with disabilities. This situation reveals that institutions including libraries are only just beginning to apply accessible Web design techniques and are not aware of the urgency behind designing accessible Web pages.
Issues Related to Accessibility in Laws A primary issue that constitutes a barrier in laws for implementation as indicated in the National Council of Disability’s (2001) report, The Accessible Future, is that the current legal framework for electronic and information technology accessibility is actually a patchwork of laws covering certain categories of technology in some settings, other categories in other settings, but nowhere reflecting an overview or comprehensive assessment of either the issues or the solutions. The second issue concerning implementation is the ambiguity of the term “undue burden.” Section 508 states that if compliance causes an “undue burden,” agencies can opt out. The Justice Department defines “undue burden” as “a significant difficulty or expense,” but how exactly this should be interpreted remains unclear, except in terms of exceeding the “resources available” to the “agency or component.” The incompleteness and vagueness in laws leave room for confusion, and non-uniform implementation results.
Unawareness of the Legal Obligation We can be very certain that hindrances to universal Web page design, the absence of an obligation to fulfill legal requirements and the general unawareness of the need to make Web pages accessible are unintentional. Libraries have a long history of responding to the needs of users with disabilities in the areas of physical
Web Accessibility and the Law 11
access to library buildings and facilities, including the use of assistive technology, and libraries do not exclude any segment of their clienteles from their services and programs. A lack of awareness on accessibility issues may largely contribute to the current situation. It states clearly in the ALA document “Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” that, “Electronic information, services, and networks provided directly or indirectly by the library should be equally, readily and equitable accessible to all library users” (ALA, 2000). From this statement, undoubtedly, libraries have a responsibility to make accessible all their electronic information. Blake states that “ignorance is rarely an adequate excuse, and knowledge demands action, particularly when inaction results in discrimination” (2000, p. 22). Other “thoughtless” barriers to accessibility are being constructed by Web developers based on the inaccurate assumption that because it is on the Web, it must be easy to read or access. Lack of professional preparation is another most serious impediment. A recent study of Web page accessibility of 24 most highly ranked library schools and their campuses conducted by Axel Schmetzke titled “Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools,” revealed that the percentage of BOBBY-approved pages per Web site averages 23 percent for schools of library and information science. Based on this research, Schmetzke concludes that, unfortunately, “the institutions which are training the next generation of librarians do not appear to instill the sensitivity and skill that would give hope for better times to come” (2001b, p. 40).
Accessibility Implementation on an Ad-Hoc Basis The degree of institutionalizing accessibility as an element of information dissemination practice in public institutions varies. The Department of Justice determined that accessibility issues cannot continue to be addressed in an ad hoc manner. DOJ’s April, 2000 report Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility gave data provided by the federal agencies which indicated that the majority of these agencies continue to handle information technology accessibility on an ad hoc basis instead of integrating accessibility into the development and procurement of their mainstream electronic and information technology products. We have seen that individual leadership by some officials and commitment of information technology personnel have mainly contributed to the relative success of some efforts. NCD’s The Accessible Future strongly points out that for the most part, these efforts and initiatives have not generally been perceived as resulting from the mandate of any law. Rather, they have been discretionary in nature, representing some of the most progressive and enlightened expressions of policy and purpose in the government, but also going well beyond what the law has been deemed to require.
12 Yu
Particularly within an institution, successful implementation of accessibility measures largely depends on individual leadership, where nationwide implementation policies are missing. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, leadership is still likely to make the difference between minimal response and efforts going beyond the legal requirements.
Adaptive Technology vs. Web Environment Many mistakenly believe that persons with disabilities can be accommodated on an as-needed basis by using available adaptive technology devices, but end users of this computer technology cannot conduct Web transactions if the Web environment does not support access functionality. Schmetzke (2001a) puts out that “assistive technology alone cannot overcome the barriers that are created at a more basic level, the format in which content is presented” (p.139). Part of the problem created by today’s networked environment is that stand-alone workstations utilizing adaptive technology software solutions are no longer sufficient, and they may also give rise to issues of incompatibility. Further, the access barriers created by inaccessible design cannot be overcome, even with the most sophisticated screen reader. In the Web environment, workstations with adaptive technology are not handled on a case-by-case basis; instead, we are addressing the linkage of the individual with the Internet community as a whole. Therefore, the rapid changes in the Web environment mandate that we should examine not only individual workstations, but also potential barriers in the Web design going beyond the computer workstation. The key issue here is that we will continue to waste valuable resources unless the concept of universal design is fully addressed, understood and carried out. Questions we need to ask ourselves are that if 10.4 million people with visual disability which is nearly 20% of 54 million of our nation’s disability population (ADA Assembly, 2000) depend on an accessible design to access the information necessary for their education and employment needs, why is accessible design not incorporated into mainstream information technology design? Why do we still depend on adaptive technology devices that only solve local workstation problems? Why haven’t we seen the tremendous opportunities being brought by the access to information technology to people with disabilities, especially those with “print disabilities” (Coomb, 2000) and the consequences of losing these benefits if the Web sites are not properly designed? There is no simple or straightforward answer to these questions. A combination of legal, technological and attitudinal factors has contributed to the situation. However, clearly identifying these barriers could be our first step toward solutions.
Web Accessibility and the Law 13
BENEFITS The benefits resulting from the implementation of universal Web design principles that allow pages to be accessible to the largest number of segments of the population have been emerging. Creative solutions to the problem of designing accessible Web sites will definitely strengthen access for people with visual impairments. Functionalities found in adaptive technology can streamline our digital architecture, and the very functionality required in Web design by people with disabilities can meet dynamic requirements for Web-based transactions. A universal Web design will greatly reduce the cost for adaptive technology geared specifically to individual computer workstations and allow universal access for users from anywhere at anytime. In a broad sense, a universal Web design allows the disability community to benefit as a whole rather than achieving accessibility through a segregated, compartmentalized, ad hoc approach. An accessible Web design enables people with low-end browsers, slow modems and narrow bandwidth to access the Web and to participate fully in the Web environment. From a very selfish point of view, designing an accessible Web is not just the right thing to do, it is the law. An accessible Web design will likely prevent expensive lawsuits or at least will minimize their potential for occurring.
APPROACHES TO BREAK DOWN BARRIERS The overwhelming benefits of creating universally accessible Web pages can hardly be disputed. However, accessibility barriers are usually systemic. There are practical and legal reasons for addressing accessibility issues in our education, policy and design. As the rapid development of new Web applications continues, it is necessary to ensure that barriers themselves will not continue to expand. This section offers recommendations for Web accessibility implementation, with attention to particular efforts underway in the implementation process.
Educate to Raise Awareness of Web Accessibility Issues Discussions about the “digital divide” problem, needs for accessible Web design and practical tips for designing barrier-free Web sites found in library literature in recent years have demonstrated awareness-raising efforts (Casey, 1999; Rouse, 1999; Minow, 1999; Jobe, 2000; and Valenza, 2000). Education on Web accessibility issues includes understanding laws, policies and guidelines; having good comprehension of the major disparities; and being aware of available resources to make Web sites accessible. Understanding the laws related to accessibility and the consequences of major disparities in our society is a first step toward solutions. It will make a great impact
14 Yu
on the implementation process if we examine the ambiguities to effective implementation of accessible Web design that may exist in current federal laws, and recommend changes. Conducting usability studies with the understanding that the accessibility is an integral part of usability will assist in promoting inclusion. We should also clearly understand that accessibility is preferred where are available, and that compatibility with adaptive technology is required where direct accessibility is not achievable.
Advocate for Inclusive Policies The way of advocating for inclusive policies comes in different forms. Currently, implementation fueled by complaints seems extremely effective, and this should not be the means by which inclusive policies are achieved. As noted earlier, institutions must know the determination by the U.S. Department of Justice that accessibility issues cannot continue to be addressed exclusively on an ad hoc basis. Instead, a systemic accessibility plan must be in place. Recent formation of the Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy by the American Library Association (ALA) represents a positive move toward this direction. The policy emphasizes: Libraries play a catalytic role in the lives of people with disabilities by facilitating their full participation in society. Libraries should use strategies based upon the principles of universal design to ensure that library policy, resources and services meet the needs of all people (ALA, 2001). With the policy, ALA desires to remove inequities and to improve attitudes toward and services and opportunities for people with disabilities. The policy covers a broad range of library resources and services including library facilities, services, collections, assistive technology, employment, library education, training, ALA conferences, publications and communications. In its publications and communications, the policies mandate that the ALA Web site must conform to the currently accepted guidelines for accessibility, such as those issued by the W3C. Such policies should be integrated into the process of Web design to guarantee that the goal of accessibility for all is achieved. Experiences from Texas and California provide examples to follow. The Texas Education Agency required under the Texas Education Code (Section 32.037) that a cost and benefit study be developed, including electronic delivery of textbooks and supplement updates as well as the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of producing electronic textbooks for students with disabilities. In response to this mandate, the Texas Education Agency issued a report in February 1999 entitled Report on the Computer Network Study Project. This comprehensive report
Web Accessibility and the Law 15
includes major recommendations related to Web development: establish an advisory committee to develop guidelines for designing accessible, interactive electronic instructional materials including simulations; and require all Internetbased or Intranet-based textbooks adopted by the State Board of Education to comply with the accessibility guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium (Texas Education Agency, 1999). In California, there are laws and administrative policies and guidelines addressing the accessibility issue. Assembly Bill 803 and Community College Regulations for AB 803 are nondiscrimination laws. AB 803 states that no persons in the state of California shall be discriminated against because of their physical or mental disability or excluded from any program or activity funded directly by the state or one that receives any financial assistance from the state (AB803, Cal. Gov. Code Section 11135). A public entity violates its obligations under the ADA when it only responds on an ad-hoc basis to individual requests for accommodation. Therefore, policies and procedures for dealing with such requests should be developed so that requests can be handled promptly and efficiently when they arise. The Education Guidelines of California Community Colleges ensure that distance education courses, materials and resources are accessible to students with disabilities and that this is a shared college responsibility (Distance Education, CCC, 1999). The guidelines mandate that accessibility is part of the accreditation review process. The guidelines say “Colleges are encouraged to review all existing distance education curriculum, materials and resources as quickly as possible and make necessary modifications to ensure access for students with disabilities” (Distance Education, CCC, 1999). If there are policies and procedures already in place, those policies and procedures should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the guidelines are dealing with issues appropriately.
Coordinate with the Disabled Community It is crucial that people with disabilities be involved in the procurement and/or development of accessibility solutions. Thus, issues of compatibility and accessibility can be anticipated and addressed during system planning and design. In higher education, a strong partnership should be built between the campus office for students with disabilities and a wide range of campus units, including campus computing services, libraries, campus administration and various campus committees, to increase sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and to identify inaccessible problems in Web design. Failure to do so may well impose a significant hardship on students with disabilities. Recent observation of a test of the library Web, catalogs and database pages using JAWS at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) yielded very valuable findings. The observation took place at the campus Office for Students
16 Yu
with Disabilities. Before the observation, the library Web pages, major library resources, such as electronic database pages, online catalog, and access pages to eBooks, were evaluated with BOBBY and LynxViewer, a text-based evaluation tool. Although these pages have been assessed to be BOBBY priority one compliant, and showed in a logical sequence in LynxViewer, many design issues were identified that were inaccessible for JAWS users, including tables within tables, dropdown boxes in the library catalog, abbreviations, etc. The library catalog’s Advanced Search mode prompted a serious problem for the screen reader, because the use of JavaScript with automatic cursor relocation did not let the reader find and select the relevant search type. Those issues were corrected immediately. Since the Library is undertaking a Web redesign project, the members of the library Web team felt strongly that it is essential to integrate accessibility reviews into the overall usability study efforts, with the assistance from the Office for Students with Disabilities.
Conduct Self-Assessment Identifying problems and implementing repairs are two integral elements of Web site accessibility assessment. In the report The Accessible Future, NCD suggests that self-assessment is an important tool under the ADA, particularly for Title II entities, and its potential value as a means of anticipating problems and achieving compliance is considerable (NCD, 2001). Under the ADA, selfassessment was largely a private and internal matter. Section 508 calls for the Attorney General to submit biannual reports to the President and the Congress, including information and recommendations on Section 508. This statute takes selfassessment to a new level that is visible to the public, and it can be a format to be followed by local agencies and institutions. One way to ensure the self-evaluation can be carried out is to recommend its inclusion into the institution’s Web planning and design process. Another is for the institution to develop its own checklists or follow the most up-to-date guidelines published by the W3C. A report of findings from the assessment should indicate the areas of violations and content that is inaccessible. Based on the assessment, a plan should be made to integrate the findings and recommendations for change into the next round of design, and determine what design habits need to be changed to make accessibility a component of Web design.
Develop Tools to Facilitate Accessible Web Design Current accessible Web design practices indicate that most practitioners are not universally aware of the available resources that could substantially reduce the rate of Web page inaccessibility. These resources include W3C’s curriculum for Web content accessibility guidelines; Michael Paciello’s book Web Accessibility
Web Accessibility and the Law 17
for People with Disabilities; and online workshops, such as Paul Bohman’s “Universal Design and Web Access” on Blackboard.com (Bohman) and the Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) online course “Barrier-Free Web Design” by Richard Banks and Norm Coombs (Banks & Coombs). There are tools available to assist Web developers in creating accessible Web sites, including accessibility evaluation tools, online training, browser analyzers, assistive technology devices, and commercial Web authoring products. •
Online Accessibility Resources • W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/ WCAG10/). W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines issued by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a part of the W3C, establishes three priority checkpoints for Web content developers to meet. There are fourteen guidelines, and each of the three priority levels associated with 64 checkpoints. The guidelines support two themes for accessible design: ensuring graceful transformation and making content understandable and navigable. Bear in mind, these guidelines do not discourage content developers from using images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience. • Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (http://ww.w3.org/ TR/WCAG10/). This is a separate document issued by WAI that explains how to implement the checkpoints defined in the basic document. The Techniques document discusses each checkpoint in more detail and provides examples using the HTML, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), Synchronized Multimedia Language (SMIL), etc. Included are techniques for document validation and testing, and an index of HTML elements and attributes (and which techniques use them). The Techniques document has been designed to track changes in technology and is expected to be updated more frequently than the Guidelines document. • Usability.gov (http://ww.usability.gov). Offers links to information on Web accessibility and resources for building sites that are accessible to all users regardless of ability and disability. • Accessible Web page design (http://www.makoa.org/Web-desi.htm). Contains collection of accessible-design resources and accessibility links, frequently updated. • Federal IT Accessibility Initiative: Section 508.gov (http:// www.section508.gov/). This is Section 508 official Web site. It contains comprehensive resources on laws and regulations, training, and current news. • UsableWeb.com (http://www.usableWeb.com/). Contains Web usability resources and a frequently updated list of accessibility articles and links.
18 Yu
•
•
Accessibility Evaluation Tools • BOBBY (http://www.cast.org/bobby). BOBBY is an accessibility validation service provided by the Center for Applied Special Technologies (CAST). BOBBY uses the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and evaluates Web pages for possible errors and ranks them in order of priority. Priority one compliance is defined as necessary. A Web site must pass all priority one checkpoints to be universally accessible. A word of caution: a “BOBBY Approval” does not necessarily mean that your site is accessible. • Lynx Viewer (http://www.delorie.com/Web/lynxview.html). The Lynx Viewer generates an HTML page that indicates how much of the content of your page would be available to Lynx, which is a text-only browser. In addition to showing how useful a site would be for a visually impaired person, it is also a good indicator for anyone with older technology. • The Wave (http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/). The Wave automatically checks for accessibility on a Web site and gives guidance for the necessary human decision-making process. It provides a button you can put into your browser toolbar to check any page on the fly. It has a good tutorial with clear explanations of W3C guidelines. • Commercial Products for fee that check for Section 508 violations • 508compliant.com. According to its developers, this site evaluates Web sites for compliance with Section 508 accessibility standards and fixes any problems it discovers. • InSight/InFocusofSSBTechnologiesInc.(http:// www.ssbtechnologies.com). It lists all suspected violations, groups them by type and sorts them by priority. Online Training Web Sites • Webable Services (http://ww.Webable.com). Webable provides useful information about Web accessibility technology, consulting and training, including Web site and software inspections and accessibility training. The accessibility training includes topics from legal implications to steps of developing a usability test process that integrates people with disabilities. Topics include legal updates on federal/international guidelines, general introduction to accessibility problems, overview of accessibility solutions and suggestions for implementation. • Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) (http://www.rit.edu/ ~easi). EASI provides courses about how to make Web sites, online courses and other learning experiences more accessible to those with disabilities. These courses include barrier-free information technology, beginner and advanced barrier-free Web design, barrier-free E-learning, accessible multtimedia, accessible adaptive technology for users with learning disabili-
Web Accessibility and the Law 19
•
•
•
ties, etc. • The 508 Universe (http://vba1.interactive-media.com/508). Online course for Web developers. The site was developed for Section508.gov. Browser Analyzers • Web Page Backward Compatibility Viewer (http://www.delorie.com/ Web/wpbcv.html). Enter the URL you want to view, and then choose from a list what features you want the Web browser to “see.” • BrowserSizer (http://www.applythis.com/browsersizer/default.asp). BrowserSizer is a tool to help Web developers check to see how their Web pages look on screen resolutions of 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 and WebTV. It controls Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator from an unobtrusive application that provides an interface to resize either browser to the standard screen resolutions. This is shareware software. Assistive Technology Devices • JAWS (http://www.hj.com/jaws.html). Windows screen reader from HenterJoyce. Stands for Job Access for Windows. • Window-Eyes (http://ww.gwmicro.com/). Windows screen reader from GWMicro. Exploits IE’s accessibility features. It has Braille support. Tools from Vendors • Microsoft has added screen magnifiers and text alternatives to visual elements in its Windows 2000, Office 2000, Internet Explorer 5 and NetMeeting. Microsoft added the features under a product known as “universal design.” • Adobe (access.adobe.com) offers online tools for converting PDF files to HTML or ASCII. • Sun Microsystems Accessibility Program (www.sun.com/tech/access/). Offers information on Java accessibility and other advances in “enabling technologies.”
CONCLUSION The method of receiving and conveying information has shifted from paperbased, typewriter-generated, hand-edited and printing-press-produced publications to more technology-mediated, intelligent, WYSIWYG software-generated and paperless forms. Therefore, the concept of access to information has changed to reflect this phenomenon. Currently, the concept of accessible design or universal design is increasingly becoming an important component of Web design. Today, public entities are subject to the requirements of the ADA and Section 504, whether or not they receive federal funds. According to the definition of the law, denial of access resulting from the inaccessibility of mainstream information technology is
20 Yu
considered to be discrimination. Barriers mostly resulting from the absence of obligations to fulfill legal requirements should be eliminated as the awareness of the importance of accessibility increases. Although a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of creating an accessible Web is still in the realm of our future research, the benefits and value for overcoming these barriers for the community of people with disabilities cannot be disputed.
REFERENCES Access Board. (2000). Board issues standards for electronic and information technology. Washington, D.C.: Access Board. Retrieved May 30, 2001 from http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm. The ADA Assembly. (2000). Fact sheet reproposed policy "library services for people with disabilities." Chicago, IL: Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies. American Library Association. (2000). Access to electronic information, services, and networks: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Chicago, ALA, Retrieved May 30, 2001 from http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ eletacc.html. American Library Association. (2001). Library services for people with disabilities policy. Chicago: ALA. Retrieved May 30, 2001 from http://www.ala.org/ ascla/access-policy.html. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1990). Washington D.C. Department of Justice (DOJ). Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/publicat.htm. Ander, R. and Fechtner, D. (YEAR). Universal design. Brllilyn, NY: Pratt Institute Department of Industrial Design and Pratt Center for Advanced Design Research (CADRE). Banks, R. and Coombs, N. (YEAR). Barrier-free Web design course [online]. Equal access to software and information (EASI), Retrieved September 28, 2001 from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/workshops/easiWeb.htm. Blake, S. E. (2000.). Universal access, the ADA, and your library Web page. Arkansas Libraries, February, 57(1), 19. Bohman, P. (YEAR). Universal design and web access workshop. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2001 from http://www.blackboard.com.
Byerley, S. L. and Chambers, M. B. (2001). Usability testing and students with
Web Accessibility and the Law 21
disabilities: Achieving universal access on a library Web site. In Thompson, H. A. (Ed.), Crossing the divide. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of College and Research Libraries, 303–311. March 15–18, Denver, CO. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved Aug. 6, 2001 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/protindex01.html#S. California Government Code, §11135. Retrieved April 26, 2001 from http:// caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/11135-11139.5.html. Casey, C. A. (1999). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equal opportunity Web sites. Information Technology and Libraries, 18(1), 22–25. Casey, C. (1999). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equal opportunity Web sites. Information Technology and Libraries, March. Chancellor’s Office. (1999). Distance Education: Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges. Retrieved April 26, 2001 from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/dlguidelines/ final%20dl%20guidelines.htm. Clyde, A. (2001). BOBBY approves—Web accessibility for the print disabled. Teacher Librarian, April, 28(4), 52. Coombs, N. (2000). Enabling technologies, untangling your Web. Library Hi Tech, 18(1), 93. Department of Justice (DOJ). (2000). Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility. Washington DC: DOJ. Retrieved June 6, 2001 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/ content.htm. Department of Justice (DOJ). (1996). Department of Justice (DOJ) Ruling on Accessibility of Web Sites. Washington DC: DOJ. Retrieved August 15, 2001 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt. Greenfield, M. A. (2001). Web Accessibility at UB. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://wings.buffalo.edu/it/Webaccess/. Heim, J. (2000). Locking out the disabled. PC World, September, 18(9), 181. Jobe, M. M. (1999). Guidelines on Web accessibility for the disabled. Colorado Libraries, 25(3), 45. Kester, D. (1999). Measuring the sight of your Web site. North Carolina Libraries, 114. Lescher, J. (2000). Designing Web sites for the blind. Econtent, April/May, 23(2), 14. Lucas Walling, L. and Irwin, M. M. (1995). Information services for people with developmental disabilities: The library manager’s handbook. West Port, CT: Greenwood Press. Marshall, P. (2001). 508 Compliance product updates. FCW.COM, Federal
22 Yu
Computer Week. Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://fcw.com/fcw/articles/ 2001/0521/cov-508rev-05-21-01.asp. Minow, M. (1999). Does your library’s Web page violate the Americans with disabilities act? California Libraries, 9(4). Retrieved Aug. 15, 2001 from http://www.atnet.org/articles/ADA-library.html. National Council on Disability (NCD). (2001). The accessible future. Washington DC: NCD. Retrieved July 10, 2001 from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/accessiblefuture.html. “Non-discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” 34 C.F.R. § 104. (1999). Retrieved Aug. 15, 2001 from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/ 34cfr104_99.html. “Non-discrimination on the basis of disability in state and local government services”, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. (1992). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ offices/OCR/regs/28cfr35.html#S130. OCR. (1997). Letter Docket No. 09-97-2002. San Francisco, CA: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Retrieved July 10, 2001 from http://www.icdri.org/csula.htm. OCR. (1996). Letter Docket No. 09-95-2206. San Francisco, CA: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Retrieved July 10, 2001 from http://www.icdri.org/sjsu.htm. Oppenheim, C. and Selby, K. (1999). Access to information on the world wide Web for blind and visually impaired people. Aslib Proceedings, 51(10), November/December, 335. Paciello, M. G. (2000). Web accessibility to people with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: CMP Books. Paciello, M. G. (1997). People with disabilities can’t access the Web! Retrieved Oct. 25, 2001 from whttp://www.w3j.com/5/s3.paciello.html. Paciello, M. G. (1996a). Making the Web accessible for the deaf, hearing, and mobility impaired. Florida Libraries, 39, 83. Paciello, M. G. (1996b). Making the World Wide Web accessible for the blind and visually impaired. Florida Libraries, 39, 5. Pearrow, M. (2000). Web site usability handbook. Rockland, MA: Charles River Media, Inc. Peek, R. and Hane, P. J. (1999). Access for everyone—Sort of. Information Today, June, 16(6), 48. Rouse, V. (1999). Making the Web accessible. Computers in Libraries, 19(6), 48. Sager, R. H. (2000). Don’t disabled the Web. American Spectator, November, 33(9), 62. Schmetzke, A. (2001a). Distance education, Web-resources design, and
Web Accessibility and the Law 23
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Thompson, H. A. (Ed.), Crossing the Divide. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of College and Research Libraries, 137–142, March 15–18, Denver, CO. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved Aug. 15, 2001 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/protindex01.html#S. Schmetzke, A. (2001b). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35. “Section 504.” (1973). Pub.L. No. 93-112 § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994). Retrieved August 15, 2001 from http:/ /www.access-board.gov/enforcement/rehabact-text.htm. “Section 508.” (1998). Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998) (codified at 29 U.S. C. 798). Retrieved October 10, 2001 from http://www.accessboard.gov/enforcement/rehabact-text.htm. Texas Education Agency, Division of Textbook Administration. (1999). Report on the Computer Network Study Project. Retrieved August 15, 2001 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Textbooks/archives/cnstemp.htm. Texas Education Code, Section 32.037. Retrieved August 15, 2001 from http:// www.tea.state.tx.us/Textbooks/cns/cnstemp.htm. Tillett, L. S. (2001). Web accessibility ripples through it. Internet Week, February, (848), 1. U.S. Department of Education Office of the Chief Information Officer. (2001). Requirements for accessible electronic and information technology design. Washington DC: Department of Education. Retrieved Sept. 28, 2001 from http://ocfo.ed.gov/coninfo/clibrary/software.htm. Valdes, L. (1998). Accessibility on the Internet. Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations. Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://www.un.org/esa/ socdev/enable/disacc00.htm. Valenza, J. K. (2000). Surfing blind. Library Journal, Fall Supplement Net Connect, 125(14), 34. Waddell, C. D. and Urban, M. D. (2000). An overview of law and policy for IT accessibility: A resource for state and local IT policy makers. The International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI). Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://www.icdri.org/SL508overview.html. Waddell, C. D. (1999a). The growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation. Proceedings, the U.S. government for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Understanding the Digital Economy Conference. Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://www.digitaleconomy.gov. Waddell, C. D. (1999b). Understanding the digital economy: Data, tools and
24 Yu
research. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce. Retrieved June 25, 2001 from http://www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm. Wonnacott, L. (2000). WAI guidelines yield highest probability of true Web access. InfoWorld, October, 22(43), 78. Woo, C. (2001). Serving users who need help reading the fine print—It’s all fine print to them: Making your library more ADA-compliant. In Thompson, H. A. (Ed.), Crossing the Divide. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of College and Research Libraries, 89–93, March 15–18, Denver, Colorado. Chicago, Illinois: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved Augusut 15, 2001 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/protindex01.html#S.
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
25
Chapter II
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implications for Distance Education Mary Hricko Kent State University—Geauga, USA
ABSTRACT Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates that federal agencies must ensure the provision of accessible electronic and information technology. Although this legislation has not formally been applied to higher education, it will inevitably have an impact on all academic institutions, particularly in the area of distance education. This analysis examines how the legislation applies to distance education technologies and technical requirements and provisions of the law. An overview of Section 508 standards and its application is distance education is discussed.
508 - 29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d). On June 21, 2001, these standards were put into effect, and specific provisions were outlined for the following technologies: • Software Applications and Operating Systems (1194.21) • Web-Based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22) • Telecommunications Products (1194.23) • Video and Multimedia Products (1194.24) • Self-Contained, Closed Products (1194.25) • Desktop and Portable Computers (1194.26) For each product category, the Access Board provides a discussion of the performance-based requirements and technical specifications to ensure accessibility and states that “when compliance with the provisions of these standards impose an undue burden, agencies shall provide individuals with disabilities . . . an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data” (Section 508). The implications of Section 508 are far reaching. IT companies that plan to do business with the federal government must now ensure that their products will adhere to the standards. Likewise, companies that develop equipment for videoconferencing and computer-mediated and Web-based applications will have to modify their products to work well with existing accessibility tools. Since the mandate was not funded, the costs for business and industry to make modifications of its IT products will inevitably affect the private sector. As a result, industry’s compliance to this legislation, combined with the government’s regulatory power, will no doubt have an impact on higher education.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S RESPONSE TO SECTION 508 The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has always been involved with ensuring that compliance is met in accordance with all ADA regulations. The department oversees the development and support of several special education programs that promote equitable access to education and responds to any complaint made that raises question on equitable access in educational facilities. With the emergence of new technologies, the OCR has received an increasing amount of complaints regarding accessibility issues. In response, the OCR has upheld several decisions to make public entities accountable for providing access to Web-based information and related technologies. In her report: “The Growing Digital Divide in Access for People with Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation, ” Cynthia Waddell (1999) notes three such cases from California.
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
27
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-95-2206 (January 25, 1996) Student filed a complaint that a university failed to provide equivalent access to the Internet. Student with a visual disability was required to make appointments with a personal reader attendant as the exclusive mechanism for access to the Internet . . . According to the OCR finding: the issue is not whether the student with the disability is merely provided access, but the issue is rather the extent to which the communication is actually as effective as that provided to others.
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-97-2002 (April 7, 1997) Student filed a complaint that a university failed to provide access to library resources, campus publications, open computer laboratories, training on adaptive computer technology and computer test taking. According to the finding: Title II of the ADA requires a public college to take the appropriate steps to ensure that communications with persons with disabilities are as effective as communications with others” [28 C.F. R. 35.160 (a)]. OCR has repeatedly held that the term “communication” in this context means the transfer of information, including (but not limited to) the presentation of a lecture, the printed text of a book and the resources on the Internet.
OCR Docket Letter No. 09-99-2041 (April 20, 1999) Student filed a complaint that the university failed to provide access to the College of Business curriculum and other educational programs, including computer laboratories and classes in the College of Business. OCR noted that although the academic community has heavily relied upon centralized units on campus to house and maintain assistive computer technology: such sole reliance upon a single centralized location . . .may run counter to the strong philosophy embodied in Title II and Section 504 regarding the importance of integrating students with disabilities into the mainstream educational programs, unless such services cannot otherwise be provided. (Waddell, 1999 par.3-5) To prepare for the mandate of Section 508, the U.S. Department of Education published a guide entitled: Requirements for Accessible Electronic and Information Technology Design,” and began revising all of the federal procurement policies and directives under its control to incorporate the standards. In April 2001, the department also reinterpreted the Assistive Technology Act (29 U.S.C 3011), to require states and subrecipients receiving assistance under the AT State Grants program to comply with section 508 . . .” This decision is extremely significant because it establishes a precedent for other federal grant programs that fund technology-related initiatives. In turn, higher education institutions that receive federal funding for distance learning projects may now have to adhere to Section
28 Hricko
508 standards if the projects involve the use of electronic and information technology now protected under the law. In response to the U.S. Department of Education’s directive, states such as California and Oregon who are recipients of AT funds have created accessibility councils to develop and implement accessibility guidelines at their postsecondary institutions. All institutions of higher education should establish a steering committee to review existing campus policies for disability services at their institution and make revisions to address the technical specifications and requirements of Section 508. These policies should specifically address provisions to be made not only for oncampus use of electronic and information technology, but also, and more importantly, in the university’s distance education program. Already, several institutions have developed extensive policy statements and guidelines for accessibility in distance education, but it is very important to ensure that along with these guidelines, institutions map out a detailed plan of implementation. All too often, common practice in most university settings is to establish guidelines with little follow-up to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation plan. Soon after guidelines are established, the institution’s application of accessibility standards should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that academic departments are adhering to the policy and that new members of the campus community are informed and aware of the guidelines.
SECTION 508 IMPLEMENTATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION In order to establish an effective strategic plan for implementing accessibility guidelines that satisfy the requirements of Section 508, it is important to centralize the distance education program so that the design, development and delivery of distributed learning courses will be approved by one office and not sanctioned by individual academic departments. Although this approach may raise complaint from academic departments that insist program development should remain decentralized or by educators who are concerned about their academic freedom, this recommendation is not designed to challenge the integrity of academic programs or even the content of the instruction, but rather the accessibility of its delivery. Quite frankly, most administrators and educators involved in developing courses for distance education do not anticipate the needs of students with disabilities. Many campus Web designers are unaware of the range of disabilities students possess and may not even consider the possibility that a disabled student will decide to enroll in a distributed learning course. If course designers do not create accessible class materials in the initial development of the course, then the format of the course must
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
29
be modified to make the necessary accommodations when a disabled student does enroll. In turn, the educator and the technical support staff may not know how to go about making a distance education course accessible. The “hurry-up and fix it” approach to make the necessary accommodations is seriously problematic since it is a direct violation of the law to respond to individual requests for accommodation on an “ad-hoc” basis. According to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), “there is an affirmative duty to develop a comprehensive policy well in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or services” (Waddell, 1999 pars. 3–5). Hence, distance education administrators have a legal responsibility and moral obligation to ensure equitable access of their program to all students and faculty with disabilities.
APPLYING SECTION 508 TO DISTANCE EDUCATION In order to understand how Section 508 will impact distance education, it is best to review how the provisions of the standards relate to distributed learning formats. At most institutions, the common modes of delivery for distance education include: Web-based instruction, two-way interactive videoconferencing (or teleconferencing), and computer-mediated instruction that combines the use of both asynchronous and synchronous technologies. (For the purpose of this discussion, various courseware products will be considered tools of computer-mediated instruction.) Some distance education programs even include hybrid courses. Hybrid distance education courses are those that integrate distance education technologies into traditional course formats. For example, a traditional English composition course may make use of a chat room feature in a courseware product for supplemental out of class discussion. In addition, some distance education programs even combine formats. For example, both Web-based and computermediated instruction must adhere to the guidelines for Web-Based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22).
Web-Based Instruction Web assisted or Web-based instruction refers to the delivery of instruction through the use of the World Wide Web. This form of instruction may include the use of a variety of Internet resources and tools to develop a comprehensive instructional Web site. Most of the technical requirements listed in the standard for Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22) replicate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 published by the Web Accessibility Initiative. The following recommendations are listed for this standard: 1. A text equivalent for every nontext element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt”,
30 Hricko
“longdesc” or in element content). 2. Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation. 3. Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example, from context or markup. 4. Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated style sheet. 5. Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image map. 6. Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps, except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape. 7. Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables. 8. Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers. 9. Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and navigation. 10. Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. 11. A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a Web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes. 12. When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology. 13. When a Web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies with the requirements for software applications and operating systems listed above. 14. When electronic forms are designed to be completed on line, the form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues. 15. A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation links. 16. When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required. (See Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications 1194.24.) All instructors who use Web documents to supplement their instruction need to be aware that Web accessibility is important for all of their students. Many instructors who teach in traditional classrooms use the Web for listing a variety of course information. However, in most cases, these instructors do not verify the
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
31
accessibility of the materials they have created and end up posting inaccessible materials such as lecture notes or, more importantly, their course syllabus. Their assumption that students can gain easy access to these documents is shortsighted. Most students do not own state-of-the-art equipment and software and may have to rely upon different browsers or slower modems to download information. Others lack the applications to download graphic-rich Web pages or large PDF files. Still others may not even have any access. Many students who do not even own a computer end up relying on computers in the campus library or computer lab to access their Web-assisted or Web-based course materials. Since some universities do not support open labs, and library terminals are often targeted for specific library research functions, students are further hindered by time restrictions in accessing material. Furthermore, for students with disabilities, the barriers to access are even greater. Most campus libraries and open computer labs are often ill equipped to meet the needs of disabled students. Some labs may have only a few adaptive workstations; others may not even have one. These workstations are usually neglected by technical staff and are often in need of repair and upgrades. Administrators who coordinate the development of academic computing need to be cognizant of the number of accessible workstations available to the disabled population on campus. It is equally important that with each new computer lab update, these workstations are modified with the latest versions of screen reading software and other applications. Having an outdated version of JAWS or other important adaptive technology may render a workstation ineffective in providing equitable access. Even though some educators are aware of the Web accessibility guidelines, for various reasons, they do not want to modify their existing Web pages, and in response, these instructors may attempt to create a text-only equivalent site to accommodate their disabled students. Although it is an easy and practical way to accommodate such students, educators need to realize that this modification may not be comparable to the actual course. Slatin (1998) claims, “it is virtually impossible not to think of the media-rich variant as the “real” and therefore privileged site.” In his view, when it comes to text-only substitutes, “separate is not and cannot be equal” (Slatin, p. 80). One common reason for this problem is that educators often fail to update text-only versions of their Web pages. In turn, the text-only page seems like an older edition of a textbook. Even though it has some of the course material in it, it is not the actual resource that is being used in class. Furthermore, according to Rick Ells (1999), “Just making content available is not education. Learning requires action, interaction, and application” (par 5). As a result, instructors need to ensure that disabled students are provided with a similar learning environment to that of their nondisabled classmates. Educators need to
32 Hricko
ensure that disabled students have equal opportunities to actively participate in their Web-based class by finding alternative methods of interactive inclusion. Students with disabilities often possess greater skills in computer fluency (because of their experience in using adaptive and assistive devices) and could very well serve as mentors to students who are having difficulty understanding how the technology works. For those instructors who include multimedia in their Web-based documents, such accommodation may seem rather challenging. However, there are several tools designed to make multimedia more accessible. For example, WinScripter v1.0 is a “unique program that contains image editing, 3-D rendering and WYSIWYG (“What You See Is What You Get”) HTML/DHTML/CSS/ JavaScript editing capabilities all combined into one convenient and easy-to-use package.” Instructors who want to include the use of graphics in their Web sites can make use of the "ALT” tag generator found at the WinScripter site to describe images up to 500 characters. This tool is very easy to use. As the mouse scrolls over the image, a popup box enables the designer to type in a description for the picture. Most screen readers will then be able to read the description. It is important to understand that the use of any graphics should relate to the text displayed. If the graphic does not enhance the content of the information or have any significance to the topic, then it should not be on the page. Instructors also need to know that the smaller the image file, the faster the download. Hence, it is recommended that a 65K or smaller image should be used with a 28.8 modem. In fact, graphics should be limited so that the page can download in less than fifteen seconds. Levin (1996) suggests that the “total size of all images used on a page should be less than 30K” and recommends that users be warned when a hyperlink leads to a larger graphic. Instructors should consider displaying images as “thumbprints” to give students the option of manipulating the graphic. If the students wish to enlarge the image, then they can do so. Instructors can also decrease the file size by selecting fewer colors and cropping the image without really losing the quality of the image. It is also important to avoid blinking, flashing or scrolling graphics. These attributes are not only distracting, but in some cases, they are usually inappropriate on an academic course site. Instructors who insist that they cannot comply to the Web accessibility standards because they are using higher-end technologies still must provide an alternative format to their Web pages. Terry Dugas (2001) states, “Any video or audio used in streaming PowerPoint, applications such as Flash, or other animations must have synchronized captioning with the visuals. Web-based captioning can be done using a number of tools such as Synchronized Accessible Media Interchange (SAMI), Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL), MAGPie, or the more advanced features of QuickTime.” These tools enable designers to synchro-
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
33
nize captions with multimedia elements to ensure that audio and video clips are more accessible. Goldberg and Freed (1998) found that the video and audio of QuickTime movie clips could be transcribed using a simple word processor. The procedure for creating a “text track” involved imbedding text into the clip. The text can either be fixed or time-coded to correlate with the actual movement of the clip. Although this procedure is somewhat time-consuming, it is an inexpensive way of providing suitable accommodation. Furthermore, Goldberg and Freed assert “adding captions or descriptions to Web-based multimedia preserves bandwidth so users can request and download specific media components.” (p. 129). (More information regarding the step-by-step procedure can be found at http:// www.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/ncam/currentprojects/captionedmovies.html.) To further assist in the evaluation of existing Web pages or the development of new documents, checklists such as The Unofficial Section 508 Web Accessibility Checklist (http://access.idyllmtn.com/section508/table_plain.html) and WebAim’s Section 508 Accessibility Checklist (http://www.Webaim.org/standards/508/checklist) are available to assist in assessment. In addition, there is a considerable selection of periodical literature and electronic information on WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Almost every disability-related organization has a link or publication that provides information on accessibility. There should be no excuse for not being able to locate information to assist in the development of more accessible Web documents. All existing distance education Web sites and Web pages that supplement any instruction on campus should be evaluated and updated on a regular basis to ensure Web accessibility. In fact, any Web-based material or service (such as online registration) should be made accessible for students with disabilities. It is just as important for a disabled student to be able to register for classes online, use the library’s virtual reference desk and read the Web based version of the campus newspaper.
Videoconferencing or Teleconferencing Videoconferencing is the ability of two or more distant groups to communicate face to face in real time by using a combination of audio and/or video equipment. In a typical videoconferencing lab, the instructor’s workstation contains the controls for the teleconferencing equipment (cameras and monitors) and also the peripheral equipment that is placed in the room. At their seats, students have may have access to microphones or other transmitting devices to interact with classmates at the remote sites. In most cases, the cameras in the room are voice activated, but the instructor may have to use controls to zoom into a specific student so participants at the remote sites can see who is speaking. Some videoconference rooms include computers, whiteboards, fax machines, and other peripheral equipment used to transfer information and course materials to and from the remote sites. Some
34 Hricko
videoconference units, such as those created by Polycom, are mobile; others are more static and set up in a fixed layout. The 508 standards that apply directly to videoconferencing equipment are found in Video and Multimedia Products (1194.24) and include the following technical specifications: 1. All analog television displays 13 inches and larger, and computer equipment that includes analog television receiver or display circuitry, shall be equipped with caption decoder circuitry which appropriately receives, decodes and displays closed captions from broadcast, cable, videotape and DVD signals. 2. Television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program and playback circuitry. 3. All training and information video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain speech or other audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed captioned. Likewise, material that contains visual information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall be audio described. 4. Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent. If we apply these provisions to videoconferencing, then it is recommended that all videoconference units be evaluated for their captioning. Some videoconference systems allot for only closed captioning, while others provide open captioning. Closed captioning requires end users to activate the captioning. Open captioning automatically appears on the screen. It is important to see if students can enable the captioning at the remote sites. Some systems only allow the sending site to make caption modifications. Captioning may be useful for all students, especially when students at the remote sites have difficulty receiving a clear transmission of the lecture from the sending site. Most students may also find it easier to follow along in the discussion of the class with the included captioning feature. Since students are accustomed to reading captions in frames on various broadcast channels such as ESPN and CNN, enabling this feature is not usually distracting. In addition to captioning, it is very important to examine how materials displayed at the sending site will appear on the teleconference monitors at the remote sites. Instructors need to understand that students at the remote sites are viewing the material much differently than the students who are at the sending site. Instructors at the sending site should not wait until the day the visual will be displayed to find out if students at the remote sites will experience difficulty in viewing it. Instructors who intend to use visuals should adhere to specific universal design guidelines. The Center for Distance Learning Research at Texas A&M suggests the following considerations for using visuals in a videoconferencing course: 1. All television screens are wider than they are high by a ratio of 4 to 3. Visuals
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
35
should be created in the same manner to coincide with the aspect ratio of the screen. 2. Slides should be created in a landscape orientation to optimize the use of space on the screen. This setup is better for viewing graphics such as diagrams and other images on the screen. 3. A 10% border should be left around the entire visual to create an “essential area” for which to work. This setup will ensure that the entire visual is seen t the remote sites. 4. Avoid visuals with complicated details. Present text and information in smaller units (additional slides) so users will have time to process what they are reading. Too much information on a given slide may be difficult for students with learning disabilities to process, particularly if the slide sequencing is fast. 5. Limit the number of words on a page or slide to seven per line and five lines per page. This amount of text is a reasonable level for most readers to process. 6. Text should be written in 24–30 point size and in a font that has normal spaces. Do not use scripted fonts but more universal fonts such as Ariel. Make certain that the case of the text is consistent. Avoid all capital letters. Using different texts within a slideshow can be confusing. All visuals should be described in both audio and text formats and be made available upon requests. It is advisable that this preparation be included as part of the development of content for the course. In this way, the materials will not have to be made during the delivery of the course and will be readily available not only for students with disabilities, but also for any student that may need additional review of the course material. In addition to ensuring accessible course materials, distance education administrators should evaluate the physical layout of the videoconferencing room and its components to ensure it is ADA compliant. Most videoconferencing labs are not furnished with setups that can accommodate adaptive technologies. The physical facilities of a lab should be dynamic to allow flexibility for accommodations. Some areas that administrators should evaluate carefully include the following: 1. Instructor station. Some videoconferencing labs set the instructor’s station apart from the student seats by placing it up on a platform. The instructor then stands or sits on a raised chair to adjust the controls for the equipment. Setups such as these are not accessible to students and faculty in wheelchairs. Even if a ramp is built, the height of the desk should be such that the individual can access the controls of the system with little difficulty. Specific height guidelines are listed with diagrams in Section 508’s standard for Self-Contained, Closed Products 1194.25. These requirements reflect already existing regulations as noted by the ADA. The equipment of the instructor’s station should be placed so that people with
36 Hricko
2.
3.
disabilities can access the control panel for the room. Control panels vary, but most employ touch screen technologies. For this reason, it is important to check if the controls are easy to access, particularly by individuals who may have motor-disabilities. “Operable controls should not be more than 24 inches behind the reference plane.” (See Self-Contained, Closed Products 1194.25.) According to the provisions listed in the Telecommunications Standard (1194.23), “ Controls and keys shall be operable with one hand and not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force to activate the controls and keys shall be 5lbs (22.2N) maximum. The status of all locking or toggle controls shall be visually discernible either through touch or sound. (See Telecommunications 1194.23.) If the control panel of the videoconference unit utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls, a redundant set of controls should be made available. (See Self-Contained, Closed Products 1194.25.) In addition, any peripheral equipment such as a whiteboard or projector should be positioned such that it ensures easy access. Cords and cables should be secured as well. Alternative formats of the operating manual should also be provided. Student facilities. Setups for student seating are usually accessible, but the equipment that students use to transmit responses to the instructor or classmates at the remote site may not be compliant. Some may require students to use voice-activated systems that direct the video camera to zoom in on the speaker. Individuals that have speech impairments may have difficulty in getting the system to pick up their voice. Other videoconferencing units require students to press and hold down a microphone control to activate the camera’s attention to them, and then the student speaks to the remote site. This setup can be problematic for students with motor-control disabilities. In addition, “microphones shall be capable of being turned on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with TTY use. (See Telecommunications 1194.23.) Adaptive technology accommodations. All videoconferencing rooms should be equipped with at least one TDD line, because “interactive voice response telecommunication systems shall be usable by TTY users” (Telecommunications 1194.23). Additional outlets for adaptive technology equipment should also be included in an accessible area. Software and hardware that the institution plans to use to make accommodations should be evaluated for compatibility with the videoconferencing system. Adaptive technology should be “network-able” to prevent technical problems during the transmission of the course. It is also important to check that “interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) shall be reduced to the lowest possible level” (1194.23).
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
37
Individuals responsible for the sound design of the room should ensure that this issue is addressed to improve the overall sound quality of the videoconference. It is also important that adaptive technology be placed in an area of the room that minimizes disruption to the other students. In addition, distance education administrators should also make plans to tape all of the sessions of each course. These videotapes can then be made available to be transcribed into an alternative format and also used for peer evaluation of videoconference instruction.
Computer-Mediated Instruction Computer-mediated instruction involves the combination of both synchronous and asynchronous learning environments to facilitate instruction. Simple computermediated practices can include the use of e-mail or bulletin board/chat room setups to the use of more complex computer conferencing applications or courseware tools such as BlackBoard or WebCT. Computer-mediated instruction is also sometimes used as a supplement to traditional forms of instruction. Many instructors not ready to take on the responsibilities of Web-based course development may use certain features of a courseware product to provide additional Web-assisted instruction, online tutoring or course materials to their on-campus students. Many university libraries have also used these products to set up bibliographic instruction modules or virtual reference desks for remote access students. Perhaps the first area of concern regarding computer-mediated instruction involves the setup of computer workstation. The computer workstation should be placed on an adjustable table that has room beneath it for a wheelchair. The placement of the monitor, the keyboard and other peripheral equipment, such as a printer or scanner, should all be placed within the height and reach recommendations for ADA compliance. If an individual is unable to use a mouse or pointing device to execute commands, keyboard access to a program’s controls becomes very important. In fact, according to the technical requirements listed for Software Applications and Operating Systems (1194.21), “all actions that can be identified or labeled with text are required to be executable from a keyboard.” For Webassisted, specifically computer-mediated instruction, students may have to use the mouse to execute commands to move forward in the program or to complete specific tasks. Instructors using computer-mediated or Web-assisted formats should determine if students could actually execute commands from a keyboard by navigating the Web document using only keyboard commands. In Section 508, the standard: Desktop and Portable Computers (1194.26) outlines the following requirements to ensure accessibility for computer keyboards: 1. Controls and keys shall be tactilely discernable without activating the controls of keys.
38 Hricko
2. 3. 4. 5.
Control and keys shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate controls and keys shall be 5lbs (22.2N) maximum. If key repeat is supported, the delay before repeat shall be adjustable to at least 2 seconds. Key repeat rate shall be adjustable to 2 seconds per character. The status of all locking or toggle controls or keys shall be visually discernable, and discernable either through touch or sound. Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports and connectors shall comply with publicly available industry standards.
If possible, all computer labs should be equipped with alternative keyboards. Trewin (2000) lists the following alternative keyboard designs: 1. Oversized keyboards with large keys 2. Undersized keyboards that require a smaller range of movement and can fit on a wheelchair tray 3. One-handed keyboards shaped for left-or-right handed operation. (These may have a full set of keys, or a reduced set) 4. Chord keyboards for individuals who cannot see the keys but can hear chords that distinguish the keys 5. Membrane keyboards which replace traditional keys with flat touchsensitive areas 6. Ergonomic keyboards designed to reduce repetitive use injuries All universities should consider purchasing at least one of the above keyboard designs to have available in either a computer or distance education lab. However, if it is not feasible to purchase all of these alternative keyboards, then there are ways to make adaptations to improve accessibility. Key guards, which are plastic sheets that fit over the actual keyboard, can be used for students with motor disabilities. The key guard has a hole for each key that ensures accuracy in pressing the key. Key guard kits are relatively inexpensive and easy to use. Other adaptations can be built into the operating system of the computer to allow alternatives in keyboard use. Trewin (2000) in her article “Adapting Keyboards and Mice” suggests that the use of Mouse Keys “allows users to control the on-screen pointer using the keyboard, including click, double click and drag operations . . . by using the numeric keypad on the keyboard.” Trewin also cites the use of voice input, speech recognition systems, head tracking, gesture recognition and switches as additional means for issuing keyboard commands (see Mouse Keys, par. 1–4; other input devices, par.1–5). Specific technical requirements for computer operating systems are also addressed in the standard Software Applications and Operating Systems. Although most educators who teach distance education may not concern themselves with the technical elements of the operating system, it is still important to be
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
39
aware of the 508 requirements associated with these features. The basic requirement for software applications and operating systems is that the product possesses built-in features of accessibility or be compatible with existing assistive technology. Alternate approaches are allowed as long as the alternate provision offers equivalent or greater access than the actual approach. This specific standard outlines in detail the requirements for several functions needed to facilitate accessibility. Perhaps the most important element in operating system design is that the applications being used with the system do not cause or create any the disruption of activated accessibility features that are built into a product. Accessibility features include the ability to reverse the color scheme, show visual prompts or provide “sticky-keys” that allows users to press combinations of keys sequentially. Sometimes, these features are disrupted when the new software program overrides the input or output devices of any existing program. Although this issue may be a concern of the technical support staff, it is important that instructors be aware of the ways in which various software programs interact with one another when loaded together. Students required to use software packages in a Web-based course need to be given information on how to ensure the downloading of this software will not disrupt the application program interface of their computer. Prior to any distributed learning course that requires students to use specific applications, instructors should send students a technical requirement sheet that outlines the technical specifications needed to use the applications in the course. Another issue involving the interface of the computer deals with the input focus of the screen. According to the requirement, the” focus should be programmatically exposed so that the assistive technology can track focus and focus changes” (see 1194.21). The focus on a computer screen refers to the area that is highlighted for an action to take place. If a user clicks on the mouse or hits the enter key, an action will occur on the focus area. For example, if a paragraph of text was highlighted and then the “delete” key was typed, the action would remove the highlighted text from the document. Students needing to modify the focus should be permitted to do so. Sometimes, LAN administrators restrict student access to the controls on a computer to ensure security. The systems administrator or distance program staff can target specific workstations to serve as adaptive technology workstations and provide login status only to those students listed as disabled users. This practice will ensure the availability of equipment and prevent nondisabled student users from altering or disrupting control panel presets. Since it may be difficult for students to use the mouse to click or double click on the focus, an alternative pointing device may be necessary. Instead of mice, students can use tracker balls, touch pads or joysticks. These pointing devices can actually be beneficial to all users, since many people often have trouble using a
40 Hricko
mouse. For example, alternative devices have buttons that will initiate and complete difficult drag operations which may be easier than trying to drag and drop with a mouse. If users still have difficulty using a mouse or pointing device, there are still a variety of other input devices that can be used. Lucent Technologies, for example, has developed the Bell Labs Text-to-Speech system (TTS) that has various applications including reading electronic mail messages and generating spoken prompts in voice response systems. Visually-impaired students or those with reading disabilities can cut and paste Web material into a text box located at the Bell lab Web site and use a variety of voices to read the information.) (see http:// www1.bell-labs.com/project/tts/#demo.) As with the videoconference lab, the room used for computer-mediated instruction must also be made accessible for students with disabilities. Jane Berliss (1991) outlines a detailed guide entitled: Checklists for Implementing Accessibility in Computer Laboratories at Colleges and Universities that provides five checklists for implementing the development of accessible labs. These checklists are arranged to address the least expensive methods of accommodation and gradually build up to a higher level of cost and implementation. This checklist serves as a useful tool for anyone involved in implementing accessibility standards, because it also provides a detailed list of vendors that can meet the accommodations. (For more information, please consult http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/accessible_labs/ campus.htm?distance=education.) Once the lab has met compliance, it is best to evaluate the accessibility of the applications that will be used in the computer-mediated instruction. The Special Needs Opportunities Windows Project (SNOW) has conducted a series of studies and tests on the accessibility of both courseware and software products that are often used to create computer-mediated courses. In addition, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has also developed WOMBAT to assist in the creation of accessible authoring tools. (See http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/wombat/010712checklist.html.) Despite the claims of greater accessibility, at this writing, there is no courseware product on the market that is completely accessible. In response to Section 508, developers of various courseware products have rushed to meet the standards to gain a lead in the market. In June 2001, WebCT worked with the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) at the University of Toronto to revise several of the software’s interface features to work better with the JAWS 3.7 screen reader. Although WebCT 3.6 is considered to be more compliant with Section 508 than earlier versions of the learning tool, it is not completely accessible. The chat room features are not accessible with earlier versions of JAWS. For those universities and colleges using earlier versions of WebCT, there are several Web sites that offer suggestions to make these versions more accessible. At present,
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
41
WebCT version 1.0 is completely inaccessible, and version 2.0 is listed as being only 83% compliant with the Level 1 Checkpoints of the World Wide Consortium Standards. (See WebCT at http://www.Webct.com.) WebCT 3.0 has a bit more compliant features but still does not meet all the technical requirements of Section 508. Some of the problems associated with the earlier versions of WebCT include the failure to provide alt text for buttons and icons, the use of frames and the lack of standard HTML. In response, the Centre for Academic and Adaptive Technology at the University of Toronto has developed several guides on how to improve the accessibility oftheseearlierversions.(Seehttp://booboo.Webct.com/otln/Webct_accessibility.htm.) Another popular courseware product has also been updated to comply with the standards of Section 508. BlackBoard version 5.5 is said to be “almost 100%” compliant with the standards as outlined in Web-Based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications 1194.22. (See Blackboard at http:// www.blackboard.com). Partnering with WebAIM and the Standards for Accessible Learning Technologies (SALT) Project, BlackBoard is working on building out additional accessibility features into the product. However, just like WebCT, earlier versions of BlackBoard are not accessible because of the use of frames and applet scripts. (See http://www.blackboard.com.) Both products, despite their revisions, have difficulty with “alt” tags and form elements. In some cases, alt tags are either missing or assigned to the wrong images. The chat room tools in both projects are also inaccessible and do not meet Section 508 guidelines. Likewise, the frames format used in both products makes it difficult to navigate if one is using a screen reader to access the page. As a result, it is imperative that educators review their use of these functions to ensure that students with disabilities who cannot access the chat room will have another way to participate in real-time group discussion. Students who are unable to access these functions of the courseware should not be penalized. It is the instructor’s responsibility to verify each student’s ability to access the features of the courseware and determine alternative methods to facilitate instruction. Other course tools such as chat room platforms, virtual reference systems and electronic bulletin board systems are not accessible. Instructors using these tools need to find ways to improve their accessibility for students with disabilities. It is important to contact the product vendor to determine if a more compliant version of the product exists. If not, the university should consider purchasing a more compliant tool for students and faculty to use. In fact, prior to the purchase of any application or enterprise software to manage a digital campus environment, campus administrators should find the answers to the following questions: Is it accessible? How is it accessible? And, which features are not accessible?
42 Hricko
OTHER PRACTICAL ADVICE All course materials: lecture notes, handouts, assignments, tests and multimedia presentations, regardless of format, should be made available to each remote site at least one month prior to the start of the first day of class. All too often, course materials are not sent to the receiving sites in time to prepare and have available for the remote campus students. If a student with a disability has enrolled in the class, additional time may be needed to make modifications or acceptable accommodations to the material. Having the materials well in advance of the class prevents the situation of disabled students falling behind in their course work because they have had to wait for the alternative formats to be made. In addition, it is also very useful for the remote sites to have copies of the course materials in case the course does not transmit to the site as a result of technical problems. Doing this enables all students at the absent site to gain access to the course materials that were distributed to the other sites on the same day of the class session. All students and faculty new to the distributed learning environment should receive an extensive orientation. Orientations involving using the technologies in the distributed learning classroom should include instruction on Web accessibility and adaptive technologies. Administrators should provide time for training staff and faculty in the development of accessible multimedia and other course materials. Technical support staff members also need time to see how adaptive technologies work with existing operating systems. Faculty should see firsthand why certain elements in the courseware products they plan to use may be inaccessible to students with disabilities. Having faculty evaluate their Web-based documents using a validation tool such as Bobby (http://www.cast.org) is a good way to emphasize the importance of Web accessibility. Training should be an ongoing process to keep people abreast of emerging technologies available to individuals with special needs. Students, faculty, technical support staff members and anyone who will be involved in implementing the distance education program should be trained to understand the technical requirements and provisions of Section 508. There are many assistive technology certification programs that provide specialized training in the development of accessible media and courseware products. Both WebCT and BlackBoard have developed partnerships with disability research centers to develop instructional programs to assist their users with information and resources about accessibility topics. Universities should take advantage of these programs if they are using these platforms to distribute their distance education courses. Finally, awareness is the key. University administrators and educators need to be proactive in communicating updates in the legislation that relates to accessibility issues. All universities should revise their existing ADA compliance policies to include discussion of Section 508 standards, regardless of whether or not they are
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
43
recipients of AT funding, and make certain the campus community is aware of the policy. An accessibility task force consisting of personnel from a variety of departments, particularly distance education, instructional computing and the office of disability services should be created to make recommendations and to conduct annual accessibility reviews of electronic and information technologies on campus. This task force can also examine ways in which the university can improve its overall services to its disabled population, especially for those students and faculty who plan to participate in distance education or make use of the campus technologies available on campus.
FUNDING THE MANDATE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Since the federal government did not fund the industry compliance to Section 508, the IT industry encumbered all of the costs to transform its products. In some cases, entire product lines had to be modified. As a result, higher education will most likely see increases in the costs of new and updated technologies that comply with the Section 508 standards. In addition, some of the older technologies may be taken off the market, and replacement parts may be hard to locate. Newer accessible versions of software may not work well with existing technologies. For this reason, administrators responsible for distance education initiatives at their institutions must include funding for assistive and adaptive technology in the budget planning to ensure that monies are available to meet the needs of students and faculty with disabilities. Berliss (1991) notes, “since 10% of the general population is disabled, a reasonable goal would be to have about 10% of equipment and resources earmarked for accessibility” (par. 5). More importantly, it is highly recommended that individuals responsible for the purchase of new technology model the federal guidelines to procure products which best comply with the standards as outlined by Section 508. The Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) has developed a detailed guide on what types of questions people can ask vendors in purchasing adaptive and assistive technologies. Requiring distance education departments to purchase accessible products at the outset will eliminate the need for expensive retrofitting at a later time. (For more information see http://www.resna.org/taproject/). Monies should also be made available for training on the use of adaptive and assistive technology. As mentioned earlier, distance education programs often fail to address issues of training and development of the staff that will implement the adaptive technologies. Very few technical support people have had extensive training in the use and applications of assistive and adaptive technologies. These individuals must have a general knowledge of how to use these tools to understand
44 Hricko
why people may be having difficulty in using them. In addition, faculty also need to be trained in understanding the needs of students with disabilities. Hricko (2000) asserts, “ prior to the development of any distributed learning course, faculty should receive training in the use of adaptive technologies and Web accessibility. If distance education faculty are required to receive training in the use of distributed learning technologies to teach their courses, it should not be a problem to introduce discussion of Web accessibility and adaptive technology as part of their preparation” (par. 6). There are several research centers that provide training videotapes and materials designed specifically for faculty and staff training. The Trace Center at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Washington’s DOIT organization offer a wide range of materials at little or no cost to use for developing a comprehensive training program. Additional training opportunities should be integrated into the curriculum of academic programs that specialize in the instruction of electronic and information technologies. Graduate students in library science, computer–related and instructional design degree programs are just a few of the student groups that should receive some training in the use and application of adaptive technologies and Web accessibility. These students should also be encouraged to pursue research in the areas of accessibility-related topics. The objective is to promote further and future investigation into the study of improving emerging technologies so that they can be more compliant and in line with the technical requirements of Section 508. Currently, there are several research projects underway to improve the accessibility of higher-end technologies. For example, Sun Microsystems and IBM have been involved in developing alternative user formats for JAVA’s programming language. One project, the JAVA Accessibility Bridge to Native Code, is designed to assist screen readers with interpreting the objects of JAVA scripts. According to Mark Stiles (2001), “the screen reader queries the bridge about the JAVA application and the bridge [relays] the queries to the JAVA Utilities. The JAVA Accessibility Utilities would then relay the message to tell the user what is going on in the application” (par. 15). Other projects have concentrated efforts to develop plug-ins for browsers. Caption-IT has been working on developing a captioning plug-in that would ease the captioning of streaming media. Other programs have begun to consider alternative techniques to deliver accessible images. MIT have been involved in developing new ways to use thermography. In thermography, the images on the Web are printed in such a way that visually-impaired individuals can scan the image with their fingertips. Even though Section 508 has indeed prompted the inquiry into the development of more accessible technology tools, there still needs to be a concentrated effort on developing the tools and technologies that make it easier to comply.
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
45
CONCLUSION The U.S. Department of Education’s commitment to adhere to the standards of Section 508, as well as the historical pattern of higher education to adopt the regulations of previous disability laws, should make educators realize that this legislation will inevitably impact instructional practice, particularly in the area of distance education. Rather than waiting for higher education to adopt Section 508’s mandate, it is more proactive to adhere to the standards now and revise existing practices to promote and sustain greater accessibility in the use and development of electronic and information technology. If our goal in distance education is to ensure that students are given equitable access to the resources and support that their on-campus peers receive, then it is imperative that we provide and create learning environments that are accessible for all types of learners. The implications of Section 508 for distance education are powerful. It will enrich and enhance the academic experience for those individuals who may not have had the opportunity to participate fully; it will empower disabled students and faculty to teach and learn with new technologies; and it will lead all of us to understand the importance of breaking down barriers.
REFERENCES Access Board Standards. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508. Berliss, J. (1991). Checklists for implementing accessibility in computer laboratories at colleges and universities. Version 1.0 University of Wisconsin-Madison: Trace Research and Development Center. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/accessible_labs/ campus.htm?distance+education. Blackboard. (2002). Retrieved March 31, 2002 at http://products.blackboard.com/ cp/bb5/access/index.cgi. The Center for Distance Learning Research. (2002). Hints for teaching using technology. Retrieved March 31, 2002 at http://www.coe.tamu.edu/distance/VideoconferencingInfo/teaching.html. Dugas, T. (2001). Mandatory ADA compliance. DEOS-L listserv. Penn State University: American Center for the Study of Distance Education. Retrieved July 10, 2001. Ells, R. (1999). Basic premises of this workshop. Effective use of the web for education: Design principles and pedagogy. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://staff.washington.edu/rells/effective/premises.html. Goldberg, L. and Freed,G. (1998). Making multimedia accessible on the World Wide Web. Technology & Disability, 8, 127–132.
46 Hricko
Hricko, M. (2000). Distance education and special needs students: Providing access with adaptive technologies. Proceedings of the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference. Spring Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcon2k/paper/paper_hrickom.html Levin, P. (1996). Guide to Web Style. Sun on the Net. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.sun.com/styleguide. Richert, M. and Siller, M. A. (2002). Key areas of the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act (IMAA) of 2002. AFB Textbooks and Instructional Materials Solutions Forum Legislative and Policy Making Group. Retrieved May 23, 2002 at http://www.afb.org/info_document_view.asp?DocumentID1693. Slatin, J. (2001). The art of ALT: Toward a more accessible Web. Computers and Composition, 18, 73–81. Stiles, M. (2001). Disability access to virtual learning environments. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.disinhe.ac.uk/library/print.asp?id=41. The Unofficial Section 508 Web Accessibility Checklist. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://access.idyllmtn.com/section508/table_plain.html. U.S. Department of Education Office of the Chief Information Officer. (2001). Requirements for accessible electronic and information technology design. Version 2.0, February 1. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http:// www.ed.gov/offices/OCFO/contracts/clibrary/software.html. Waddell, C. D. (1999). The growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation. White paper presented at the Understanding the Digital Economy Conference, Washington DC, May 25 and 26. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/ access/waddell.htm. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/WAI. WebAim. Section 508 Accessibility Checklist. Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://www.Webaim.org/standards/508/checklist. WebCT. (2002). Retrieved March 31, 2002 at http://www.Webct.com/products/ viewpage?name=products_accessibility. WinScripter v1.0 Retrieved March 31, 2002 from http://Webmastermatrix.com/ scripter/index.htm.
Understanding Section 508 and Its Implication for Distance Education
Part II Understanding Web Accessibility Guidelines
47
48 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
Chapter III
Strategies to Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education Barbara A. Frey, Ashli Molinero and Ellen R. Cohn University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 49
INTRODUCTION Just as wheelchair ramps and elevators provide access to wheelchair users, good Web design provides “electronic curb ramps” to the Internet for individuals with visual or other disabilities (Waddell, 1997). Research shows it is easier and less expensive initially to construct accessible Web pages than to later retrofit the pages with corrections. Most of the technical requirements for accessible Web design can be met if Web designers adhere to the straightforward principles suggested by the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative Guidelines (2002). Accessible Web site design benefits all users, not just persons with disabilities. This is because users with slow Internet connections, users who access the Internet via personal Web devices, and users who are speakers of foreign languages may also experience accessibility challenges (Rose and Meyer, 1996). In short, accessible Web sites increase usability. Accessibility, a component of usability, suggests “information systems flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the broadest range of users…regardless of age or disability” (Waddell, 1997). Usability is achieved by designing with the end-user in mind, to ensure that a user has access to any Web site, no matter when or how the access is sought (Pearrow, 2000). This chapter addresses the current status of Web accessibility and usability in higher education. Specifically, it answers three questions: (1) Why are the concepts of accessibility and usability important? (2) Who are affected? and (3) What are some basic strategies to design accessible and usable Web sites?
CURRENT NEEDS Access to the World Wide Web is expanding on a daily basis. Over 513 million persons worldwide use the Web for news and other current information, email, entertainment, consumer goods and educational materials. With more than eight million Web sites, the Internet has evolved into a relatively inexpensive and valuable teaching and learning tool. It enables students to participate in online courses, research their term papers, conduct online “chats,” and engage in entertainment, often in the same sitting. Virtually every postsecondary institution offers “application-to-graduation” based services via the World Wide Web. Students access the Internet to read course descriptions, register for classes, pay tuition, purchase books, submit assignments, take quizzes and check grades. Students appreciate the ability to retrieve information at any time and from any place. Faculty members seek to enhance student learning via online PowerPoint lecture notes, graphics and Web site links, and both faculty and students routinely access printed, audio and visual resources from around the world. Many faculty
50 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
members develop their own course Web sites or use course management software packages such as BlackBoard or WebCT to supplement their resident courses. “Just in time” (JIT) classroom-based learning now coexists with “anytime, anywhere” Web-supported learning. Though approximately 29% of Internet users with disabilities take courses over the Internet or use online resources for their schoolwork (Kaye, 2000). Webbased “schools” are not open to all. Due to inaccessible Web environments, many persons with disabilities (i.e., visual, auditory, physical and/or cognitive) enjoy limited or no access to the Web. There is an emerging body of research on Web-based accessibility in the United States, and our own data suggests improved accessibility over time. For example, in 1999, Cohn et al. analyzed the Web sites of 25 major U. S. universities and 76 U. S. pharmacy schools using the CAST Bobby 3.1.1 validation tool. Results showed that 76% of Web sites were not accessible. Two years later, Cohn and Wang, (2001) examined 114 sites of top U.S. universities with doctoral programs identified via U.S. News and World Reports; 39% of the Web sites were not candidates for Bobby Approval. Given the globalization of education, international Web site accessibility is also of interest. Cohn and Wang found that university Web sites are even less accessible in China. Only 8% of 62 Chinese university sites identified via the yahoo.com search engine were candidates for Bobby Approval.
Federal Mandates Educational institutions need to pay particular attention to the accessibility of their “virtual campuses.” This is not just an issue of good business or fairness but is dictated by specific legislation and legal rulings, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act (1973), Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act (1986), and the Assistive Technology Act (1998). Federally supported educational contracts, including those for Web site developments, will now need to comply with accessibility guidelines when purchasing technology. Government Web sites must also be accessible to both federal employees and the general public. The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board set forth requirements for federal Web sites under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act mandates universal access to computer networks (http://www.w3.org/wai/policy/#USA).
RATIONALE The major categories of disability that can affect a person’s access to Internetbased information include vision, hearing, motor and cognitive impairments. In
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 51
addition to the usual monitor, keyboard and mouse, persons with disabilities sometimes use various assistive technologies to access computer information. Unfortunately, recent Internet trends and developments have surpassed the capabilities of the assistive technologies (e.g., audible screen readers) often leaving these individuals with insufficient access. Examples of current trends that create difficulties for people who rely upon assistive devices to obtain Web-based information include the improper use of image-based navigation, frames and multimedia. However, when properly structured, each of these elements can be employed in an accessible manner. It is a common misconception that an accessible page needs to be “text only.” In fact, even a “text only” page can be inaccessible if it includes ASCII art, and conversely, a well-designed page displaying different multimedia and graphics can be completely accessible.
EFFECTIVE WEB DESIGN STRATEGIES The World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative (www.w3c.org/wai/) established guidelines and put forth strategies to address the accessibility issues related to the use of images, frames, tables, multimedia components, hypertext links, page orientation, Java scripts and applets, graphs and charts. This section describes some simple yet effective design practices.
Page Organization One of the easiest ways to promote Web accessibility is to create an organized page. Text should be clear and simple, and headings and lists should follow a consistent structure through the Web site. When navigation buttons are used throughout a site, they should be placed in the same page location, so the user can anticipate their position. Large buttons are easier for users to see and use than small buttons. Many Web designers use cascading style sheets (CSS) to control how elements are displayed within a Web page. The style sheets include style specifications for fonts, colors, and spacing for Web documents. However, older browsers or assistive technologies cannot read all style sheet presentation features. Alternative Web pages should, therefore, be presented without CSS. This requires adding text equivalents for any image or text generated via style sheets. The presence of style sheets enables the user to suspend the movement of flashing text or graphics by simply turning off the style sheets. This is an important accessibility feature because displays that flash or blink can cause epileptic seizures in susceptible individuals if the flash has a high intensity and is within the frequency range defined as 2 Hz to 55 Hz. Instructions on how to “turn off” the style sheets
52 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
are usually present in the “Help Section” of the user’s browser (http:// www.webaim.org).
Images When an image has accompanying text, an audible text reader is able to read an informative description of the image, rather than just saying the word “image.” This allows screen reading software to describe the nature of an image to a user with visual impairment. The use of this attribute is particularly helpful when images are used as navigation tools, or when a person is surfing with the images turned off in the browser. Images can easily be defined or described to persons with visual disabilities by using the HTML based ALT IMAGE attribute, commonly referred to as ALT tags. ALT tags are small blocks of text that describe the graphics on a screen. The tags work in most browser environments, including nonstandard browsers such as pwWebSpeak or Lynx. The bold text that follows shows how an ALT attribute appears in HTML: Whenever possible, the ALT tag should convey the content and/or purpose of an image via a short text description. When the graphic is important and holds value for understanding the page content, the designer can use the ALT tag with a description placed between two quotation marks. Conversely, visitors to the site should also be informed when a graphic conveys no content related information. For example, in the case of a blue divider bar, sighted visitors will see the bar, while those visiting via a text browser will see/hear nothing. The HTML would be written as follows: . Figure 2 shows the same Web page, viewed in Explorer with the images “on” and “off.” Notice how the ALT tags used in the second frame still provide information to allow a user to navigate the page.
Image Maps In an image map, the user clicks the part of a picture referred to as a “hotspot.” This activates a link to another part of the page or Web site or triggers a connection to a new Web site. For example, a graphic including all the counties in Pennsylvania could be constructed as an image map in which each county serves as an active link to the official county Web site. The accessibility challenges presented by image maps are as follows. While sighted students using graphical browsers such as Netscape or Internet Explorer would see a county map of Pennsylvania, students using text-based browsers would not be able to obtain the visual information, thus rendering the image map useless.
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 53
Figure 1: A Web page viewed in Internet Explorer with the images turned “on”
Figure 2: A Web page viewed in Internet Explorer with the images turned “off”
A better Web design strategy is to use the client-side MAP and text for hotspots. Web designers should provide equivalent text links for server-side maps. Text alternatives to image-based links will ensure that the image maps are available to all users.
54 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
Graphs and Charts Graphs and charts can present even greater accessibility challenges. Previously, we described the use of the ALT attribute to provide an alternative text description for graphic images. It is important that ALT tags are not lengthy, since some browsers have difficulty displaying long strings of text. When inserting text to describe more complex graphs or charts (or to transcribe sound files), the Web designer can employ the LONGDESC attribute, which provides for more detailed text than the ALT attribute. Descriptions can be linked to an external document or can immediately follow the graphic or sound element (http://ncam.wgbh.org/ accessncam.html). The following text describes a pie chart: This pie chart shows the percentage of ducks and geese flying across the Allegheny River in one hour. Seventy-five percent of the birds were ducks and 25% of the birds were geese. The total number of ducks and geese is not displayed on the pie chart.
Tables Most screen reader programs travel down columns and read from the top of the table to the bottom. They then progress to the top of the next column. This vertical reading pattern can obscure the meaning of information tables for which the person is required to read in a horizontal manner. Inaccessible tables can be avoided by authoring the Web pages using the HTML 4 hypertext mark-up language. Figure 3 shows an example of a well-constructed table followed by the HTML that identifies row and column headers. ‘TD’ designates the data cells, ‘TH’ the headers and ‘TR’ the table rows. It is also important to keep tables as simple as possible because students with screen enlargers will only view part of the table at a time. Finally, the Web designer can provide a textual summary of the table content using HTML text, the LONGDESC attribute, or the ALT function. Figure 3: Accessible table format Column 1 header Column 2 header Row 1 header Column 1 Row 1
Column 2 Row 1
Row 2 header Column 1 Row 2
Column 2 Row 2
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 55
Figure 3: HTML code (continued)
Simple table created using HTML markup
Column1header
Column2header
Row1 header
Column1 Row1
Column2 Row1
Row2 header
Column1 Row2
Following is an example of the latter:
MultiMedia Components Multimedia components are frequently used in distance education, adding new dimensions to the learning experience. It is important to remember that just as static and dynamic images can create problems for persons with visual impairment, sound must also be rendered accessible for those with hearing impairment. Even though some persons who are deaf can read lips, this is not generally a practical solution for watching video over the Internet, as it requires the presenter to maintain a position facing the camera at all times. Therefore, audio clips should be accompanied by a text transcript, and video clips should be closed captioned. Captioning also aids persons whose native language differs from the presenters, as they can both “read” and listen to the content. The Media Access Generator (MAGpie) is an authoring tool for making multimedia materials accessible to persons with disabilities. Using MAGpie, authors can add captions to three multimedia formats: Apple’s QuickTime, the World Wide Web Consortium’s Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) and Microsoft’s Synchronized Accessible Media Interchange (SAMI) format (http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie).
56 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
Scripts, Applets and Plug-ins Another accessibility concern occurs when the user is prompted to complete Web based forms to provide information online (e.g, to register for classes). CGI (common gateway interface) scripts are mini-programs used to handle information submitted in Web-based forms, such as surveys and registration forms. Scripts are written in programming languages such as Visual Basic, C++, Perl or Apple Script. Since not all screen readers can properly interpret online forms, it is important that Web designers alternatively include an e-mail link to enable the reader to submit information. Further barriers to accessibility arise because all browsers do not support applets and plug-ins. Applets are programs executed or launched from within a Web page, and plug-in technologies support visual and audio effects. Whenever possible, the Web designer should select plug-in formats (such as .wav or .mov) that have browser support. When applet programming is not accessible via the software, inform the user of the applet and provide an equivalent alternative in HTML. Plug-ins are mini-programs that play within the browser. Common examples include QuickTime or Flash movies, Shockwave files or the Adobe Acrobat Reader. When using these files, it is always helpful to include links to the appropriate source so the user can download the appropriate plug-in. The Web designer should also present the information in an alternative format.
Frames Frames are used to simultaneously display multiple documents. This technique is only useful when the browser is running on a graphical display. Other platforms, such as a speech browser, either do not recognize the concept of “multiple displays” or have only limited screen space. Frames are often difficult for text-based screen reading software to interpret, and older browsers do not support frames. Furthermore, browsers and screen readers cannotfollowmultipleeventsinmultipleframes;theycanonlyfollowoneframeatatime. The Web designer should therefore add the HTML designation and meaningful titles to pages that feature frames. Figure 4 shows a Web site that presents content both with and without frames. If no alternative to the use of frames is available, ensure that frames are labeled with the TITLE attribute. Provide a text alternative with NOFRAMES; and use the TARGET=“_top” attribute to ensure useful Uniform Resource Location (URL) addresses.
Use of Color When color is used for navigational purposes, persons who cannot distinguish color-coded visual cues due to “color blindness,” who are blind, or who have monochrome computer screens will not receive the information. Therefore, it is
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 57
Figure 4: Depicts a Web page with and without frames
important not to rely on color alone to convey Web-based information. Pages should be designed using high-contrast colors, and minimizing color palettes will decrease a page’s download time. The Web text in Figure 5 uses color to represent vacation days for high school seniors (imagine that the entries with asterisks are presented in red). Without the asterisks, students unable to discern the color red will not be able to determine which dates apply to “seniors only.” In this example, asterisks beside the related Figure 5: Depicts alternative strategy (asterisks) to communication via color HIGH SCHOOL CALENDAR Student Vacation Days Additional Holiday for Seniors* January 1 January 21 February 14* March 17* April 10
58 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
dates with a description key below the text communicate the message more effectively than the use of color alone.
Default Font Settings Web documents should always incorporate default font settings. These allow users with low vision to increase the font size in their browsers to make pages more readable. Figure 6 demonstrates use of a pull-down menus to increase or decrease font size.
CONCLUSIONS Faculty and student use of Web-based educational resources is on the increase, as are the numbers of persons with disabilities who will require accessible Web sites. Accessible Web resources will benefit (i.e., increase usability) all users and comply with federal accessibility regulations for electronic and information technology. Since many educational institutions are public facilities, it is imperative that faculty members render their Web-based materials accessible to all learners. Figure 6: Viewers may employ the left-side pull-down menu to increase (as shown) or decrease font size
Increase Web Accessibility and Usability in Higher Education 59
RESOURCES Tools, checklists and guidelines are available online to validate Web site accessibility. However, it is important to recognize that these tools must always be used in concert with informed human judgment. It is also advisable to assess Web sites using a variety of browsers, including at least one text-based browser (e.g., Lynx, http://lynx.browser.org), and a variety of computer platforms, monitor sizes and screen resolutions. The following are excellent Internet-based resources on Website accessibility: • World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative (http:// www.w3c.org/wai). This Web site contains useful content guidelines and strategies to develop accessible course material. The comprehensive site also includes an online validation tool. • CAST/Bobby (http://www.cast.org/bobby). The Bobby software program assesses Web page accessibility in accordance with the W3C/WAI Guidelines and recommendations of Section 508 of the U. S. Rehabilitation Act. A free online version is available, as well as a more comprehensive downloadable software package for purchase. • HTML Writer’s Guild AWARE Center (http://aware.hwg.org/). AWARE stands for Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education. The Web site serves as “a central resource for Web authors for learning about Web accessibility.” • Trace Research and Development Center (http://www.trace.wisc.edu). The Trace Center is a leader in research to make standard information technologies and telecommunications systems more accessible and usable by people with disabilities. • U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/). NIDRR supports research programs related to the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities and maintains a strong interest in universal accessibility. • National Center for Accessible Media (http://ncam.wgbh.org/). NCAM projects focus on researching Web accessibility issues and offer solutions and strategies to achieve accessible content. • The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (http:// www.wcet.info/projects/laap/webcast5.htm). This Web site provides simulations that allow users to experience inaccessible Web sites as experienced by persons with disabilities.
60 Frey, Molinero & Cohn
REFERENCES Castro, E. (2000). HTML for the World Wide Web (fourth edition). Berkley, CA: Peachpitt Press. Cohn, E. and Wang, J. (2001). Web-based accessibility in 2001: Representative rehabilitation, education and health related sites. Joint Conference of the Chinese Rehabilitation Medical Society, The Health and Rehabilitation Medicine Engineering Branch 4th Conference and China Disabled Person Rehabilitation Association, Health and Rehabilitation Engineering Branch 5th Conference. Cohn, E., Molinero, A. and Stoehr, G. (1999). Is school really open? A report card of Web-based accessibility in higher education. International Conference On Technology and Education. Jolliffe, A., Ritter, J. and Stevens, D. (2001). The Online learning handbook: Developing and using Web-based learning. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Publishers. Kaye, H. S. (2000). Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities.” Disabilities Statistics Center. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health and Aging (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education), University of California. National Center for Accessible Media (2002). http://ncam.wgbh.org. Neilsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Paciello, M. G. (2000). Web accessibility for people with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: CMP Books. Pearrow, M. (2000). Web Usability Handbook. Rockland, MA: Charles River Media Inc. Rose, D. and Meyer, A. (1996). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. U.S. Department of Education. http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=542. Waddell, C. D. (1998). Applying the ADA to the Internet: A Web accessibility standard. American Bar Association National Conference. WebAim. (2002). http://www.webaim.org. World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative. (2002). http://www.w3c.org/wai.
Text-Only Alternatives 61
Chapter IV
Text-Only Alternatives: Are They Right for Your Site? Jody Condit Fagan Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA
INTRODUCTION One of the options open to developers wanting to ensure their Web pages or applications are Web-accessible is to provide an equivalent alternative that complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. One way to provide an accessible alternative is to offer a “text-only” version of a Web site or application. This concept is often misunderstood or misused. As a result, some text-only versions of Web pages become documents stripped of non text features. These pages are not updated with the same regularity as the rest of the site. Other pages provide text-equivalents for certain images and graphics, without regard to maintaining the integrity of the page they were designed to parallel. In turn, it is necessary for Web designers to understand how they can effectively create textonly pages while still maintaining a visually appealing Web site.
What is the Meaning of Text-Only? Although the specifics of writing a text-only page will be discussed in detail later, the working definition under consideration by the W3C of a text-only equivalent is as follows: A text equivalent communicates the same information as the non-text content, serves the same function as the non-text content, may contain structured content or metadata, [and] can be easily converted to braille or speech, or displayed in a larger font or different colors. (Chisholm, White, and Vanderheiden, 2001, Checkpoint 1.1 section, para. 2) When text equivalents are provided for all parts of a page that require it, the result is by definition a text-only page. The most important criterion for developing an accessible Web document is that the users of either text-only or media-rich versions will receive the same information. Web developers that wish to create media-rich Web sites may do so, as long as they provide text equivalents for nontext items. Since Web developers usually have fast connections to the Internet, top-ofthe-line workstations and the latest versions of Web browsers, it is easy for them to forget that most of the people that will access the pages do not possess comparable resources. Since one of the great advantages of the Internet is its global connectivity, developers need to consider connections from developing countries, public schools and libraries, and home-based users who rely on dial-up connections. Also, developers for public institutions are required by law to consider the needs of adaptive technology users (28 C.F.R. 35.160(a)). Adaptive technology, which includes such as screen readers and Braille output devices, handles text quite well, making text-only pages a good design solution. In addition, developers may wish to create pages that are accessible to mobile wireless devices, such as cell
Text-Only Alternatives 63
phones, cars, and handheld personal computers. For all these reasons, concentrating the bulk of information on a Web site in text format assists a wide variety of users with access.
THE WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C) GUIDELINES AND TEXT-ONLY PAGES The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) does not endorse “text-only” as a catch-all solution; it specifically outlines what is required to transform an inaccessible page gracefully into an accessible one. A key idea in the W3C guidelines is their definition of text “equivalent” You will have successfully provided a text equivalent for all nontext content if: 1. All nontext content is explicitly associated with a text equivalent (images have alt-text, movies have collated text transcripts, animations have descriptions, interactive scripts have a functional equivalent such as a form, audio files have a text transcript) 2. The text equivalent fulfills the same function and conveys the same information as the nontext content 3. Where it is not possible to describe the non-text content in words or for text to provide the same function as the nontext content, a label identifying the content is provided. (Chisholm, White, and Vanderheiden, 2001, Checkpoint 1.1 section, para. 1) The major guidelines surrounding text-only pages are listed can be found in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines created by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) http://www.w3.org/WAI/. The considerations for developing accessible Web pages may seem overwhelming, but the W3C has recognized this concern and is currently revising the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to ensure that nonWeb designers using the guidelines can easily understand them. The following considerations offer a summary of the guidelines.
Separate Structure from Presentation Separating the structure of a page from presentation, which refers to such issues as font, color and images, makes providing text equivalents much easier for the developer and much more accessible to the software rendering the page. The structure of the page concerns the logical organization of information. Is the page presented by chapter? Is there a table of contents? Are there different sections such as an introduction, body, index, and appendices? Where is the site map? HTML tags are able to mark up both structural and presentation elements. Tags such as
,
,
and
specify document structure, while tags such as , and <STRONG> involve presentation.
64 Condit-Fagan
There have been several attempts to separate structure from presentation in the Web world. Cascading style sheets are intended to guide how each structural HTML tag should be presented by keeping all style information separate from the documents themselves. Figure 1 shows an example of a style sheet. The HTML documents without the style sheets would feature only structural HTML tags, but combined with a style sheet, each structural element would receive the intended presentation. This allows developers to change the style of their documents without editing multiple files and also allows the HTML documents to be easily parsed by users of alternative and assistive technologies. The W3C Consortium is also working to encourage developers to separate structure and presentation by recommending new versions of HTML, the newest versions of which are called XHTML: The key idea is to separate the user interface and presentation from the data model and logic, allowing the same form to be used on a wide variety of devices such as voice browsers, handhelds, desktops and even paper (W3C, 2001, "What the future holds" section, para. 3).
Create Documents that Do Not Rely on One Type of Hardware To ensure greater accessibility, pages should be designed in such a way that they can be navigated without the use of a mouse or pointing device. The Web page should be able to work with small screens, low resolution, black and white color and with only voice or text output. In addition to the W3C guidelines, developers may wish to consider users of mobile, wireless technology. This means designing for monochrome displays and small viewing areas, which mandate concise writing or highly structured text; the Palm handheld displays are approximately 150 pixels wide by 140 pixels high. Robin Peek (1999) provides additional limitations on Web Figure 1: A cascading style sheet body { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } li { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } ul { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } td { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } p { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } a { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; } b { font-family: “Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; } h1 { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt; } h2 { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; } h3 { font-family: “Verdana, Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; } indent { margin-left: 20px; }
Text-Only Alternatives 65
pages designed for handheld devices including storage limitations of the device, and considering page format to reduce the amount of scrolling necessary. She writes, “since the devices can handle hyperlinks successfully, a deep hierarchy of short pages is considered a better design than longer pages. The success of such a design requires building good indexes into the document” (p. 47). She adds that since most users turn off graphics on handheld devices when browsing the Web, “just as in designing for the big screen, good alt tags (alternative text tags) should be contained within each embedded image tag” (p. 47).
Providing Accessible Equivalents Text can be rendered in ways that are available to almost all browsing devices and accessible to almost all users. Therefore, if a developer chooses to create a media-rich page, it is important to make the information available in another format, particularly making it usable by someone who is visually or hearing impaired. Developers need only to make their pages usable by the equipment; they do not need to consider the output equipment itself. One easy test the W3C recommends is to imagine reading the document aloud over the telephone and noting which page elements require description to make the information meaningful to the listener (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 1999b, "Text equivalents" section, para. 5).
ELEMENTS THAT REQUIRE ACCESSIBLE EQUIVALENTS The following elements require accessible equivalents to render a Web page accessible. For each element, methods are suggested to provide alternative access with text-only methods. Note that nontext equivalents may also improve accessibility for people who cannot access visual information or written text, such as an auditory description of a visual presentation. Another example of a nontext equivalent is a video of a person telling a story using sign language as an equivalent for a written story (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 1999b, Section 6).
Images, Animated Images, Graphical Representation of Text and ASCII Art Providing a text equivalent for images and image-like objects is syntactically easy but may take some semantic thought. The W3C guideline reads, “Text equivalents must be written so that they convey all essential content” (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 1999b, "Glossary" section, “equivalent”). With images, the most important change is to add an alt attribute to the tag, which provides a description of the image (Figure 2). Illustrative examples of alt tags exist
66 Condit-Fagan
Figure 2: An ALT tag
at the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind Web site, a resource for the visually impaired (Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind – Independence is our Vision, 2001). At the time of writing, a photographic image at the top of the site showed a blind person at work. The alt tag said, “With assistive technology and job training, employees work at fulfilling jobs.” Later on the page, the alt tag for an image of a man with headphones above a logo for ReelBooks.com that served only as a link to that Web site said, “Link to ReelBooks.com” (Figure 3). Note that in the first case, the meaning of the image itself was important and what was conveyed. In the second case, the fact that the image represented a man with headphones was irrelevant—the meaning of the image was as a link to ReelBooks.com. A literal translation of the image is less important, therefore, than conveying the meaning of why the image is there and what relevant information it provides. Morris Library uses an animated image of two persons using a tin can telephone when a user has an active connection to the Library’s online reference service (Figure 4). The alt tag for this image does not need to describe the tin can telephone but the fact that the user is connected. Developers frequently use graphical representations of text to make navigation bars for the Web site. Although in many cases the alt tag can simply repeat the words in the graphic, if further information is conveyed, this should be included. For example, some navigation bars change the color of the button or tab if the user is currently on the page corresponding to the button or tab. The alt tag for that image might note “You are here” or “current page” in addition to repeating the text. Complex or lengthy text equivalents can be provided with the “longdesc” attribute Figure 3: Descriptive ALT tags
Figure 4: An image with meaning beyond simple description
Image Map Regions Developers should provide alt tags for regions of image maps and may also wish to provide redundant text links (for example, at the bottom of the image map) to the same URLs that are found in the image map (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 2000, Section 7.4). One example of providing a text alternative to an image map with the “longdesc” attribute can be found on the Center for Technology in Government’s Web site, http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/resorcmn.html. This page contains an image map at the top of the screen. Although an “alt” tag is included for each hyperlinked part of the image map, the site also provides a “longdesc” link to a separate, text-only html page: http://www.ctg.albany.edu/ctg-utilities-list.html. Screen shots of both are provided in Figure 7.
Applets and Programmatic Objects For the OBJECT element used to insert applets, developers can provide text equivalents between the opening and closing