Accessibility and NOF-digi Support: The Lessons Learnt

1. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/seminars/net-gain-2004-06/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/seminars/net-gain-2004-06/ Accessibility and NOF-digi Support: The Lessons Learnt About The Speaker Brian Kelly is a Web adviser to UK HE/FE and MLA communities. Brian has been active in promoting best practices for Web sites for over 10 years. Brian works closely with the JISC-funded TechDis service. Brian was the project manager for the NOF-digi Technical Advisory Service. Brian works for UKOLN, a national centre of expertise in digital information management. Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk UKOLN is supported by:

2. NOF-digitise TAS • NOF-digitise Technical Advisory Service (NOF-digi TAS): • A technical support service for the NOF-digitise programme • Provided by UKOLN and AHDS (Arts & Humanities Data Service) • Worked closely with BECTA (compliance checking) and NOF-digitise team • NOF-digi TAS provided: • A Technical Standards framework • Support on implementing the framework • Workshops, email, FAQs, support, occasional site visits, etc.

3. NOF-digi Standards Framework • The Technical Standards framework: • Aims to provide: • Widespread accessibility • Platform and application independence • Long-term access to digitised content • Coherent and extensible technical framework which provides scope for interoperability and re-use of resources • Based on open standards philosophy • See <http://www.peoplesnetwork.gov.uk/content/technical.asp> The standards framework provided the basis for many successful projects, which can be accessed from the EnrichUK portal

4. Challenges • Although open standards appear to provide clear benefits their deployment can raise some challenges: • Immaturity of standards • Poor support for standards • Costs of implementing standards • Lack of expertise in use of particular standards • Possible danger that standards may fail to gain widespread acceptance • How should we respond to these challenges: • Ignore issues and force projects to implement the standards, with financial penalty clauses for non-compliance? • Abandon commitment to open standards and leave issues to the market place? • Develop an acceptable compromise?

5. Addressing The Challenges • NOF-digi TAS: • Implemented reporting mechanism for deviance from use of open standards or best practices • Provided an FAQ which sought to illustrate acceptable and non-acceptable deviations • Explanation had to be approved by the funders • See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/nof/support/help/faqs/complete_faqs.htm#migration> (a) Give area in which compliance will not be achieved (b) Explain why compliance will not be achieved (including research on appropriate open standards) (c) Describe the advantages and disadvantages of your proposed solution (d) Describe migration strategies to ensure compliance in the future (e) Describe how the migration may be funded

6. QA Focus • QA Focus: • Funded by the JISC to support JISC's digital library programmes • Remit to develop quality assurance methodology to help ensure that projects' deliverables are: • Functional • Widely accessible • Interoperable • Easy to deploy into service • See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/> NOF-digi had a compliance checking regime, whereasQA Focus's approach is based on self-assessment

7. Matrix For Selection Of Standards • QA Focus deliverables: • QA methodology based on: • Documented policies • Systematic compliance checking • Self-assessment (but documented, so documents could be audited by funders, etc. depending on funding regime) • Support materials: • 60+ briefing papers (brief focussed advice) • Case studies (descriptions of how projects implemented best practices, and details of lessons learnt) • Matrix For Selection Of Standards (briefing-31) Although funded by JISC to support JISC's digital library programmes the methodology and materials are freely available to all

8. Accessibility • How does this relate to accessibility? • WAI WCAG acknowledged as key guidelines • DRC report of 1,000 Web site indicates: • Lack of motivation to implement guidelines in some areas (design-driven Web developers?) • Possible difficulties with the WCAG guidelines • Other factors: • Need to address usability (sometimes forgotten due to emphasis on accessibility, DDA, etc.) • Need to provide user testing (not just Bobby!) • Possible conflicts between WAI's philosophy (must use W3C formats for WAI AAA) and user-driven needs • Aspects of WAI WCAG too theoretical

9. Common Misconceptions • Some common misconceptions: • If I have a text-only version my site is accessible • No! WAI says "Content developers should only resort to alternative pages when other solutions fail …" • I must provide pages with large font sizes • No! You should use CSS so users can change the font size • Several blind users have tested my Flash pages and said it's OK – so I can add a WAI AAA logo • Testing is great - but what about other disabilities? And WAI AAA does not allow proprietary formats • Bobby approves my site so I'm OK • No! You still need to check your page manually • I should add Bobby/WAI logos on my page

10. Accessibility Logos • Should you provide a logo? • Bobby is just one testing tool – and has limitations. • What is the scope implied by a logo: the page, project area, entire (Council?) Web site, … • Do you have QA procedures to ensure that the resource is accessible today and tomorrow? • Do you go for WAI A, AA or AAA? What about WCAG 2.0, with its new categories: A+ • Having a logo may imply a higher level of accessibility than you provide, and could lead to greater exposure to legal threats A list of accessibility auditing tools is available at <http://www.science.plym.ac.uk/warp/eval/evaluationtools.html> - but such tools must be used in conjunction with policies, manual testing, …

11. Holistic Accessibility • TechDis & UKOLN are developing a • holistic model for (e-learning) accessibility which includes: • WAI WCAG and wider accessibility issues • Usability issues • Needs of the learner / user • Infrastructure issues (security, performance, management, …) • Local, regional, domain, etc. factors (legal framework, political imperatives, …) • A quality assurance framework which provides policies and procedures for the above areas

12. There is no simple right answer. If you are considering using Flash you should address the broader issues – and ensure that you document your decisions and policies Flash – An Example • Macromedia's Flash format: • A proprietary format which we should avoid when building open extensible resources (and avoid dependencies on commercial vendors cf. GIF) • A widely used format for developing richly interactive, user-friendly resources • An accessibility nightmare, rightly disapproved of by W3C WAI WCAG guidelines • A format which is being made accessible and which is endorsed by RNIB

13. EnrichUK Web site viewed on Netgem digital TV box (£64.50 for Linux box!) Accessibility – New Devices • Note that making use of (X)HTML and CSS will provide additional benefits • Access on PDAs, etc. • Access on digital TV devices (cf Netgem.com) • Access by automated robots • Ease of addressing (URI for individual resources & resource fragments) It would be wise to seek to use open standards by default

14. A Self Assessment Toolkit • QA Focus has develop toolkits to help projects in their self-assessment • Note: • Answers not stored • Highlights issues & gives examples – doesn't give an solution for your project • Answers should be documented for internal project documents, for use with collaborators, for possible checking by funders and defence against legal threats http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/toolkit/

15. Organisational Issues • Involvement in digital library project activities: • Provides valuable opportunity for organisations and staff to develop skills and expertise in new areas • Provides an opportunity to gain experiences in use of standards and best practices which can be reused in mainstream council, etc. activities • Provides opportunity to learn from and engage with one's peers (related organisations, etc.) • Provides opportunity to learn from previous activities (NOF-digi programme, etc.) and from other sectors (e.g. JISC, EU, …)

16. How UKOLN Can Help • UKOLN: • Has experience of supporting MLA's and JISC's digital library programmes • Has developed wide range of support materials which are freely available on Web • Will continue to develop resources and services (e.g. online toolkit) to support its communities • Will address mechanisms to support community building (e.g. online support forums) • Will work closely with MLA and Regional Agencies to develop scaleable support infrastructure

17. Conclusions • To conclude: • You must have an accessibility policy (your defence against legal threats will be weak without one) • Your policy should be realistic and achievable • You should have systematic mechanisms which allow you to check your compliance • These mechanisms should involve manual testing and not just automated tools • This approach can be deployed in other areas • You are not alone!

18. Useful Resources • NOF-digi Technical Advisory Service (archive) <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/nof/support/> • NOF-digi Technical Advisory Service FAQs <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/nof/support/help/faqs/> • QA Focus <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/> • QA Focus Toolkit <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/toolkit/> • QA Focus Documents <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/>