UKOLN Briefing Paper

Holistic Approaches to Web Accessibility

Providing Web services which are widely accessible to users with disabilities can be challenging.
Web accessibility guidelines provide a useful starting point but the increasing diversity of ways in
which the Web is used, differing user requirements and the variety of ways of accessing Web
resources there is a need to avoid the simple ‘checklist’ mentality. This briefing paper describes a
holistic approach to Web accessibility developers by researchers and practitioners in the UK and
describes how these approaches relate to the BS 8878 Web Accessibility Code of Practice.

BACKGROUND THE CHALLENGES

Universities and colleges have an ethical responsibility to
ensure that their resources and services are accessible to a
wide user community, including users with disability. In
addition to their ethical responsibilities, organisations have
been required, initially by SENDA legislation and now by the
Equality Act, to take reasonable measures to ensure that
people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly.
This briefing document describes approaches which
institutions can take to ensure that they fulfill their
responsibilities whilst acknowledging the challenges posed by
the technical complexities, differing priorities and user
requirements and available effort and resources.
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO WEB
ACCESSIBILITY
The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has developed
guidelines which can help enhance the accessibility of Web
resources for people with disabilities. The guidelines are
highly regarded and there is an expectation across many
public sector organisations that Web content will conform to
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
As illustrated in Figure 1
the WAI model is based
on the adoption of not
only the implementation
of guidelines for Web
content but on a total of
three key components.
WAI have developed
guidelines for developers
of Web browsers and other
user agents (the User Figure 1: The WAI Model
Agent Accessibility
Guidelines or UAAG) and Web authoring tools (the
Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines or ATAG).
If software vendors develop software which conforms with
UAAG and ATAG guidelines, it will enable content authors
to create accessible content based on WCAG guidelines and
readers to configure UAAG-conformant browsers to support
their individual preferences and requirements.
Ideally institutions would deploy browsers and authoring
tools which conform with WAI guidelines. Content creators
could then publish Web resources based on the WCAG
guidelines and the content would be universally accessible to
all, regardless of any disability a user may have. In practice
this is not necessarily achievable for a number of reasons:
Limitations in WCAG guidelines: WCAG 1.0 guidelines
contained flaws. Although WCAG 2.0 has addressed
many shortcomings it can only reflect current evidence-
based practice and is known to have limited scope for
disabilities such as cognitive impairments.
Failure to support UAAG: No Web browser currently
fully supports UUAG. It can be very costly to upgrade to
better browsers across an institution.
Difficulties in implement ATAG: Although authoring
tools which support ATAG are available there are many
ways of creating Web content (such as Web archives of
email lists) for which ATAG guidelines aren’t applicable.
User reluctance to implement best practices: Even
when tools implement guidelines users may be unaware of
them or reluctant to use them, due to familiarity with
existing tools, usability difficulties, etc.
The diverse ways the Web is used: The Web has moved
from being primarily an informational resource to being
used to support learning, cultural appreciation,
communications, etc.
The diversity of the user environment: Users access the
Web and create content in diverse ways using smart
phones, games machines, digital cameras and other
devices to view Web content and create content which can
be accessed on the Web.
The costs of conforming to the guidelines: It can be
expensive to ensure full conformance with the guidelines.
Expectations of universal accessibility: The WAI model
is based on ‘universal design principles’ which may lead
to a misunderstanding that all resources must be
universally accessible to all. In reality this may not be an
achievable goal, with approaches based on ‘widening
participation’ providing a more appropriate target.
ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES
Holistic Approaches to Web Accessibility
Although the WAI work has been valuable in encouraging
organisations to address accessibility issues there is now an
awareness of possible risks in mandating strict conformance
to WCAG guidelines based on a one-size fits all approach.
This could result in services failing to be deployed, causing a
loss of services to all, or significant effort being expended
which fails to deliver significant accessibility benefits.
Accessibility researchers and practitioners in the UK
developed a pragmatic approach to the implementation of
Web accessibility guidelines. Early work focused in an e-
learning context and emphasises the importance of the
accessibility of the learning outcomes rather than accessibility
of the e-learning resources. This approach, which was
initially developed by developed by staff at UKOLN and JISC
TechDis has been described as holistic accessibility (see [1].
As illustrated in Figure 2 the important aspect is ensuring the
accessibility of the learning objectives. The implementation
of accessibility guidelines needs to be taken alongside other
considerations including the usability of the service (which
can be neglected if an emphasis is placed on usability issues);
the desired learning outcomes (accessibility features should
not provide simple access to, for example, answers to multiple
choice questions!); and other contextual aspects such as
available resources and expertise and the institutional
technical and learning support infrastructure. The holistic
model needs to include quality assurance approaches which
can help to ensure that best practices are documented and
implemented in a systematic and consistent fashion.
Figure 2: Holistic Model for E-Learning Accessibility
A Stakeholder Model
A stakeholder framework has been developed which is
illustrated in Figure 2. As described in [2] this contextualised
model of accessible e-learning practice in higher education
takes into account:
All stakeholders of accessibility within a higher education
institution.
The context in which these stakeholders have to operate:
drivers and mediators.
How the relationship between the stakeholders and the
context influences the responses they make and the
accessible e-learning practices that develop (see Figure 3).
The extent to which e-learning resources are accessible will
be influenced by how the stakeholders in the institution
respond to external drivers such as legislation, guidelines and
standards. In addition, however, this response will be
mediated by stakeholders views and understandings of a
range of issues including: disability, accessibility and
inclusion; the extent to which they view themselves to have a
duty and responsibility to respond; the extent to which they
feel their personal autonomy is threatened and the extent to
which they feel it is necessary or beneficial to respond as a
community or team. The accessible e-learning practices that
develop out of these responses will therefore vary depending
on the stakeholders and the context in which they are
operating but essentially centres on taking ownership and
control as well as developing personal meaning (i.e. personal
interpretations of the drivers of accessibility, depending on
personal experiences and understandings).
Figure 3: Stakeholder Framework
BS 8878: WEB ACCESSIBILITY CODE OF
PRACTICE
The work on developing approaches to enhancing
accessibility of Web resources and services which has been
carried out by accessibility researchers and practitioners in the
UK higher education sector has taken place in the context of
related activities including the recent release of the British
Standard’s BS 8878 Web Accessibility. Code of practice [3].
This document, which has been published following recent
changes in UK legislation in which the Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA) has been replaced by the Equality
Act, takes a user-focussed approach to Web accessibility and,
significantly, signals a move away from the checklist
approach which was prevalent when WCAG was the key
element in Web accessibility policies.
The heart of the BS 8878 document is a 16 step plan:
1 Define the purpose.
2 Define the target audience.
3 Analyse the needs of the target audience.
4 Note any platform or technology preferences.
5 Define the relationship the product will have with its
target audience.
6 Define the user goals and tasks.
7 Consider the degree of user experience the web product
will aim to provide.
8 Consider inclusive design & user-personalised
approaches to accessibility.
9 Choose the delivery platform to support.
10 Choose the target browsers, operating systems &
assistive technologies to support.
11 Choose whether to create or procure the Web product.
12 Define the Web technologies to be used in the Web
product.
13 Use Web guidelines to direct accessibility Web
production
14 Assure the Web products accessibility through
production (i.e. at all stages).
15 Communicate the Web product’s accessibility decisions
at launch.
16 Plan to assure accessibility in all post-launch updates to
the product.
In step 13 BS 8878 places the WCAG guidelines in context;
these are no longer the main driver for accessibility.
CASE STUDIES
Two case studies are provided which illustrate application of
the holistic approach to Web accessibility.
Case Study 1: The Institutional Repository
The requirements, for example, to provide structural markup
or meaningful alternative text for images in PDF files in
institutional repositories can be difficult to achieve, especially
if author are not available to ensure the correct meaning is
provided. However rather than prohibiting the deposit of
papers which infringe accessibility guidelines (and lose the
benefits of open access repositories) the holistic approach
would adopt a strategy based on training (so that researchers
are made aware of relevant issues and techniques for
enhancing accessibility of their papers); workflow processes
(so that deposited papers maintain their structure and relevant
accessibility metadata), the development of more accessible
templates, etc.
Examples of engagement with the key stakeholders include:
Education: Training provided (a) for researchers to
ensure they are made aware of importance of accessibility
practices (including SEO benefits) and of techniques for
implementing best practices and (b) for repository
managers and policy makers to ensure that accessibility
enhancements can be procured in new systems.
Feedback to developers: Ensure that suppliers and
developers are aware of importance of accessibility issues
and enhancements featured in development plans.
Feedback to publishers: Ensure that publishers who
provide templates are aware of importance of provision of
accessible templates.
Auditing: Systematic auditing of repository item to
monitor extent of accessibility concerns and trends.
A summary of how such approaches may relate to BS 8878 is
given in Table 1 (see [4] for further information).

Step Case Study: Institutional Repositories

Requirements Gathering
1 The purposes will be to enhance access to research papers.
2 Target audiences will include the research community.
3 Researchers may need to use assistive technologies to read PDFs.
4 PDFs deposited by authors might not include accessibility support for people with disabilities.
5 The paper will be provided at a stable URI.
6 Users will use various search tools to find resource. Paper with then be read on screen or printed.
Strategic Decisions
7 Usability of the PDF document will be constrained by publisher’s template. Technical accessibility will be constrained
by workflow processes.
8 Not generally applicable. However RSS feeds will; be provided for new papers and to allow limited syndication of
repository content.
9 Aims to be available on devices with PDF support including mobile devices.
10 Aims to be available to all browsers and platforms which support PDFs
11 The service is provided by repository team.
Production
12 HTML interface to PDF resources.
13 HTML pages will seek to conform with WCAG 2.0 AA. PDF resources might not conform with PDF accessibility
guidelines.
Other Factors
14 Periodic audits of PDF accessibility are planned.
15 Accessibility statement will be published.
16 Periodic reviews of technical developments will take place.
Table 1: Application of BS 8878 to Document Policies on Accessibility of an Institutional Repository
Case Study 2: Amplified Events
The term ‘amplified event’ has been coined to describe use of
networked technologies (such as video streaming, Twitter
back channels, Slideshare for resource sharing, Skype for
audio transmissions, etc.) to enhance engagement with
discussions and maximize the impact of events. Such events
may help to maximise impact at conferences for researchers
and practitioners. The approaches may also b useful for
supporting student learning by, for example, enabling lectures
to be ‘time-shifted’. Additional advantages include the
environmental benefits of engaging with participants without
the need to attend to an event in person, as well as the benefits
for people with physical disabilities for whom travel to the
event may prove unduly difficult.
However technologies such as video streaming, Twitter and
Slideshare may themselves be felt to generate accessibility
barriers as their use of, for example, JavaScript may obstruct
assistive technologies.
Rather than regarding such barriers as a justification for
failing to amplify events, the holistic approach regards a
failure to take reasonable measures to amplify events as a
disservice to people with disabilities. The secondary issue of
the accessibility of online delivery mechanisms may be
addressed by the provision of a diversity of such delivery
mechanisms.
An example of innovative approaches taken to enhancing the
accessibility of an amplified event can be seen from
UKOLN’s IWMW 2010 event. The speaker’s talks were
available via a live video stream with their slides accessible
using Slideshare. Shortly after the event the video stream was
synchronized with the Twitter posts, thus providing an
example of how Twitter can be used for captioning of videos.
The captioning may also provide benefits for members of the
remote audience whose native language in not English. In
addition an official ’event amplifier’ had responsibility for
using Twitter to provide a summary of the talks and to
respond to problems raised by the remote audience.
An appropriate policy for such an event which seeks to adopt
BS 8878 principles may be:
The event will make of video streaming and resource
sharing event amplification technologies in order to
enhance access to a remote audience. An event hashtag
will provide a means for sharing discussions and
experiences. An event amplifier will also seek to ensure
that concerns raised by the remote audience are addressed.
COMMISSIONING PROCESSES
Organisations which commission development activities
should ensure that accessibility considerations are including
in the tending or bidding processes. However rather than
specifying a particular level of WCAG conformance a more
appropriate approach may be to require submissions to
describe how they will conform with BS 8878.
Such a requirement would avoid the dangers of using a one-
size-fits-all approach. Requiring funded projects to develop
their own plans for conforming with BS 8878 should also
help to ensure that implementation of the plans become
imbedded in the development work.
This document is available under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence
Version 0.3 published on 16 February 2011
REFERENCES
1. Developing a Holistic Approach for E-Learning
Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and Swift, E. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 30, Issue 3,
Autumn 2004. ISSN: 1499-6685. (2004).
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/cjtl-2004/>
2. A Contextualised Model of Accessible e-Learning Practice
in Higher Education Institutions, Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 22(2), 268-288. (2006).
<http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/seale.html>
3. Web Accessibility. Code of practice, BS 8878, BSI,
<http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000
000030180388>
4. Web Accessibility, Institutional Repositories and BS 8878,
Kelly, B., UK Web Focus blog, 24 January 2011,
<http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/web-
accessibility-institutional-repositories-and-bs-8878/>
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
This document is based on joint work initially by
UKOLN and JISC TechDis staff in advising on best
practices for enhancing the accessibility of Web
resources and subsequently further developed by
researchers and practitioners in the UK and Australia.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following have contributed to papers which have
described the holistic model for Web accessibility:
Lawrie Phipps, Elaine Swift, David Sloan, Helen Petrie,
Fraser Hamilton, Cora Howell, Andy Heath, Stephen
Brown, Jane Seale, Patrick Lauke, Simon Ball, Liddy
Nevile, EA Draffan, Sotiris Fanou, Ruth Ellison, Lisa
Herrod and Sarah Lewthwaite.
RELATED WORK
The JISC TechDis Accessibility Passport seeks to build a
culture of accessibility by recording the quality of current
practices; providing guidance for better practices;
providing effective communication channels on
accessibility features and soliciting user feedback. See
<http://www.jisctechdis.ac.uk/techdis/pages/detail/
online_resources/JISC_TechDis_Accessibility_Passport>
RELATED SOURCES OF INFORMATION
JISC TechDis: <http://www.techdis.ac.uk/>
UKOLN’s peer-viewed papers on Web
accessibility: <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-
focus/papers/#accessibility>.
AUDIENCE
This is a policy document aimed at policy makers and
practitioners with responsibilities for developing and
implementing policies related to the provision or
commissioning of Web services.