=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-143/paper-8
|storemode=property
|title=Learner-centred Accessibility for Interoperable Web-based Educational Systems
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-143/paper08.pdf
|volume=Vol-143
|authors=Liddy Nevile,Martyn Cooper,Andy Heath,Madeleine Rothberg,Jutta Treviranus
}}
==Learner-centred Accessibility for Interoperable Web-based Educational Systems==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-143/paper08.pdf
Learner-centred Accessibility for Interoperable
Web-based Educational Systems
Liddy Nevile Martyn Cooper Andy Heath
La Trobe University Open University Sheffield-Hallam University
Bundoora Walton House Howard Street,
Victoria, Australia Milton Keynes Sheffield, UK
+61 3 9479 1111 +44 (0) 1908 274066 + 44 (0) 114 2 255555
liddy@sunriseresearch.org m.cooper@open.ac.uk ak.heath@shu.ac.uk
Madeleine Rothberg Jutta Treviranus
CPB/WGBH NCAM University of Toronto
125 Western Avenue 130 St. George St
Boston, MA 02134 Toronto
+1 617 300 3400 +1 416 978-5240
madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
ABSTRACT Keywords
This paper describes the need for an information model and E-learning systems, accessibility, learner profiles, AccessForAll
specifications that support a new strategy for delivering
accessible computer-based resources to learners based on their 1. INTRODUCTION
specific needs and preferences in the circumstances in which
This paper describes the requirements, model and specifications
they are operating. The strategy augments the universal
for a new strategy for delivering accessible computer-based
accessibility of resources model to enable systems to focus on
resources to learners based on their immediate specific needs
individual learners and their particular accessibility needs and
and preferences. There are many reasons why learners have
preferences. A set of specifications known as the AccessForAll
different needs and preferences with respect to their use of a
specifications is proposed.
computer, including because they have disabilities. Instead of
Categories and Subject Descriptors classifying people by their disabilities, this new approach
emphasizes the resulting needs in an information model for
H.1.2 (User/Machine Systems): Human factors, human
information processing formal structured descriptions of them. It then provides a
complementary formal, structured information model for
H.3.7 (Digital Libraries): collection, dissemination, standards, describing the characteristics of resources required for the
user issues matching process. The aim is to make it easy to record this
information and to have it in a form that will make it the most
H.3.3 (Information Search and Retrieval): retrieval models, useful and interoperable.
selection process
This work builds on work being done primarily by the World
H.3.5 (Online Information Services): data sharing, Web-based Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative
services (W3C/WAI) [1] to determine how to make resources as
accessible as possible. The focus of the new work is how to
General Terms make sure that accessibility is learner-centered and supportive of
Management, Human Factors, Standardization. good educational practices. The distinguishing feature of the
current work is that it provides an approach that assembles
distributed content into accessible resources and so is not
dependent upon the universal accessibility of the original
resource.
The specifications for a common description language, while
initiated in the educational community, are suitable for any user
in any computer-mediated context. These contexts may include
e-government, e-commerce, e-health and more. Their use in
education will be enhanced if there are accessibility descriptions
of resources available to be used in education even if that was
not their initial purpose. The specifications can be used in a The third approach differs from the first two in a number of
number of ways, including: to provide information about how to ways. Accessibility requirements are met not by a single
configure workstations or software applications, to configure the resource but by a resource system. Rather than a single resource
display and control of on-line resources, to search for and or a choice between two resource configurations, there can be as
retrieve appropriate resources, to help evaluate the suitability of many configurations as there are learners. The ability of the
resources for a learner, and in the aggregation of resources. computer mediated environment to transform the presentation,
An extra value of the specifications described will be in what is change the method of control, to disaggregate and re-aggregate
known as the network effects: the more people use the resources and to supplement resources is capitalized upon to
specifications, the more there will be opportunities for match resource presentation, organization, control and content to
interchange of resources or resource components, and the more the needs of each individual learner. This is known as the
opportunities there are, the more accessibility there will be for AccessForAll approach.
learners. For a network delivery system to match learner needs with the
appropriate configuration of a resource, two kinds of
2. OVERVIEW descriptions are required: a description of the learner’s
Virtually any student, irrespective of any disability, can be preferences or needs and a description of the resource’s relevant
enabled to effectively interact with a computer. Some students characteristics. These two descriptions are the subject of the
with disabilities require alternative access systems, usually AccessForAll specifications [4]. The Accessibility for Learner
referred to as “assistive technology,” to enable them to do this Information Profiles specification (AccLIP) is a specification for
and others need the way content is presented to them by the describing a learner’s needs and preferences and the
computer to be appropriate or they may need to interact with the AccessForAll Meta-data specification (AccMD) is a
computer using methods other than the conventional keyboard corresponding specification for description of the resource.
and mouse. There are well-established principles for how to The AccessForAll specifications were developed by IMS Global
promote accessibility in software design and electronic content Learning Consortium; the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
[2]. These promote compatibility with assistive technology and Accessibility Working Group, and others.
ensure that different ways of interacting with the computer can
be accommodated. 2.1 Accessibility for people with disabilities
There are a number of approaches to making networked It is not the purpose of this paper to give an introduction to
resources accessible, whether on the Internet or on an Intranet. accessibility. The authors and numerous others have done that
many times. In order to understand the rationale for this work,
The first and most common approach is to create a single however, it is important to realize that virtually anyone,
resource (Web site, Web application) that meets all the irrespective of disability can be enabled to use computers. They
accessibility requirements. Such a resource is known as a just require one sense (visual, aural, or tactile) that they can use
universally accessible resource. While this approach would work to interpret the output from the computer and control input to the
well in many situations,, it is not often that the resource is fully computer. Most people with disabilities are able to employ
‘universally accessible’, especially if it contains interactive technical aids usually referred to as assistive technology. These
components. Worse, so-called universally accessible resources include screen readers that can transform well-formatted text
are so judged by conformance to W3C accessibility into synthesized speech; screen magnifiers that enlarge the
conformance and this approach is not infallible, as the guidelines display in a well-managed way; and alternative input devices
are not ‘perfect’. There are examples of when the guidelines can that replace or augment the conventional keyboard and mouse.
be followed without the resource actually being accessible as Other people require content on the computer to be presented to
expected and there are many vagaries due to lack of attention to them in a particular way. For example, they may find text much
usability principles that also account for lack of satisfactory easier to read if it is presented in a high contrast as yellow on
access [3]. Indeed, the resource may be accessible to everyone, black and in a particular font. Others will, of course, prefer
but optimal for no one. Often, resource components that are very alternative fonts and color schemes. Sometimes only a part of
effective, entertaining or efficient for some but not all learners the content is not accessible to a learner and they require the
are rejected or not displayed. New technologies and techniques same information to be presented in an alternative way. For
are often not used for fear that they will not meet the example, a blind person may not be able to access video material
requirements. but can benefit from an audio description of the same material or
The second approach used by a number of educational content a deaf person can benefit from captions (sub-titles) that replace
providers is to create two versions of the resource: a media rich the dialogue. It should be stressed that not all such requirements
version and an “accessible version,” which is stripped of all arise from a disability but can also be because of the
media that may cause accessibility problems. While this solves circumstances the computer is being used in. For example,
some of the problems with the first approach, it can also cause when working in a large lecture theatre, a noisy environment,
other problems. In some cases, the accessible version is not hands free, or on a small screen PDA.
maintained as well as the default version, giving learners with
disabilities an out-of-date, different view of the information. 2.2 The value of the accessibility agenda
More often, students who perhaps need more assistance get less There are many well-documented arguments for why web
because they are using the impoverished version of the resource. content and service providers in general, should be concerned
The notion that learners with disabilities are a homogenous about accessibility [5]. Major arguments are often cited; social
group that is well served by a single bland version of a resource responsibility, market-share, financial benefits and legal
is also flawed. liability. By not dealing with accessibility issues a provider
excludes a large number of people from using their site.
Recent research in the US for Microsoft has shown that 60% Most resources consist of multiple objects combined
of the working community would benefit from accessible into what are commonly known as pages.
content. Of these, perhaps 10% have no access unless the Sometimes this is done once and there is a static
content and services are fully accessible. The moral and version available and sometimes it is done
market arguments are obvious. Those who do provide dynamically for the learner. What is unusual about
accessible resources will have exclusive access to a significant the new accessibility approach is that the objects that
sector of the market. In Australia in 2004, a large publishing Figure 1: The AccessForAll profile criteria
house re-built their website to make it fully accessible. They
have reported that they now save $1,000,000 in transmission
costs per year [6]. Finally, in many countries there is
increasingly strict legislation requiring access for all citizens
and in education, the standard is often quite demanding and
the consequences of failing can be expensive anti-
discrimination penalties.
In education, where the requirements are usually more
demanding, many countries are now practicing what is
sometimes called ‘inclusive’ education that aims to include and
provide equally for all potential students. Lack of accessibility is
a serious problem.
2.3 Describing Learner Needs and
Preferences
The AccessForAll approach involves specifications for
describing learner preferences and needs that define a functional
description of how a learner prefers to have information
presented, how they wish to control any function in the
application and what supplementary or alternative content they
wish to have available. This requirement for functional
specifications is based on the philosophy that disability is a
mismatch between a learner’s needs and preferences and what
they are presented with. It is an artifact of the relationship
between a learner and an interface or application. Thus a learner
who is blind does not have a disability in an audio environment
but a learner who is using a computer without speakers or a
headphone does.
This description should be created by learners or by their
assistants, usually with a simple preference wizard. It should be
of needs and preferences that are essential to a learner’s
functioning as a consequence of their having a disability or it
may be that the circumstances, devices, or other factors have led
to the mismatch between them and the resources they wish to
use. Each learner may need more than one description of needs
and preferences or accessibility profiles to accommodate their
changing needs within different contexts. A learner may have
one profile for work and another for home if the bandwidth is
different, for example. In addition, these profiles should be able
to be changed to suit immediate needs and preferences, to
accommodate changes in circumstances or context.
2.4 Describing Resource Characteristics:
The Content Model
The AccessForAll approach requires finer than usual details
with respect to embedded objects and for the replacement of
objects within resources where the originals are not suitable on a
case-by-case basis. This is made possible by describing the
resources in terms of their modalities – auditory, visual, tactile,
and text. In addition, the separation between primary and
equivalent resources is necessary to permit flexible dis-
aggregation and re-aggregation to meet the individual needs.
comprise the version of the resource that is sent to the learner time of a request from a learner. Static content publishing, the
need not be located in the same place, that is, they may be former, requires the content to be in a universally accessible
distributed. In fact, the original composite resource may contain form, replete with all the alternatives that may be needed within
objects that need to be transformed, replaced or augmented; the the single resource. Dynamic publishing allows for the
equivalent objects used for replacing or augmenting may have customization of the resource, with objects being selected as
been created in the original authoring process, or in response to they are combined. This form of publishing is easier to adapt to
some other learner’s difficulties with the original resource. the new approach. It is also a more common form of publishing
Resources and objects within resources should be classified into for larger educational institutions.
two categories: primary and equivalent. Most resources are 2.5.4 Transforming, Supplementing and Replacing
primary resources and require a simple set of statements: how The process of selection of objects for combination into
transformable is this resource, what access modality is used resources according to learner profiles can take three forms:
(vision, hearing, text literacy or touch) and what is the location transforming, supplementing and replacing. When there is no
of any known equivalent alternative. The workload of the visual ability, images need to be replaced by either audible or
creator of the primary materials’ metadata should be kept as tactile equivalents. Where there is a need for intellectual
light as possible. The accessibility characteristics of equivalent support, a dictionary may be needed as a supplement to a
alternatives such as caption files or image description files also resource or an object. Where transformation of objects occurs
need to be described
most frequently is with text. Well-formed text can be rendered
2.5 The Process of Matching visually, as characters, or a sign language, or aurally, perhaps by
a screen reader, or transformed into a tactile form as Braille or
2.5.1 Authors and Authoring Tools simply changed in color, size and other display features.
The authoring requirements for the content creator using the
AccessForAll approach are different and sometimes easier than 2.5.5 Metadata interoperability
in other approaches to creating accessible materials. Objects are The AccessForAll descriptions of learner needs and resources
treated in a more modular fashion, and universal accessibility is for them are metadata. Metadata is information, usually
not expected of each object, just the combination of objects. The structured, about an object, be it physical or digital. It can be
responsibility is, as always, with the author to provide as many thought of as similar to a library catalog record of a book. As
accessible pieces as possible but mainly on the resource server with a catalog record, metadata does not have to be part of a
to combine them appropriately for the learner. For this approach, resource, although it should be associated with it, and it does not
there are the usual basic authoring principles, requiring that each have to be made at the same time as the resource or even by the
part of the resource be created following the standards for resource's author or owner. A good general description of
accessibility, but when there is an object that may not be metadata is available in "Metadata Principles and Practicalities"
accessible, it can be described as inaccessible and the location of [8].
an alternative identified. This means that the author does not Metadata is most commonly associated with the resource
have full responsibility for creating accessible content and also discovery process. In the case of AccessForAll metadata,
that a second or later author can make an inaccessible resource resources and objects can be filtered according to needs and
or object accessible, by providing or identifying an equivalent preferences identified in a learner’s profile, or metadata. Thus,
alternative and contributing its accessibility profile. in the new strategy, the matching of metadata enables the
The W3C/WAI guidelines offer specifications for accessible matching of resources to needs and hence accessibility.
authoring tool [7]. Accessible authoring tools provide authors The difference between what is commonly done with metadata
with guidance in the authoring process as well as making it and what is described here is perhaps in the way in which the
possible for people with special needs and preferences to resource is often seen both as a composite resource and as a set
participate in the authoring process. Many of these assume little of objects, as described above. A resource, whether a service or
‘accessibility’ expertise on the part of the author. Some tools are content of another kind, often has components that are in
specifically for the production of content but others help in the different modalities; such as a Web page with some text and a
process of making content accessible. Some of these tools are picture. The text, if properly formed, can be transformed into
already able to help in the production of content profiles. speech but the image will need to be replaced by text that can
then be rendered as speech. This means that not only is it
2.5.2 Cumulative and Collaborative Authoring important to note that the resource as a whole has some text and
The AccessForAll approach supports cumulative and
an image, but it may also be necessary to have some detail about
collaborative authoring by allowing new equivalent resources to
those items that together form the resource. Metadata is most
be added to a collection independently of the original resource
useful if it confines its scope to the thing it is describing but
authors. Subject matter experts can create primary content, while
those descriptions, if correctly written, can often be combined to
organizations or educators with experience in alternative access
provide a description of the whole. In the approach described in
strategies can create the equivalents. Over time, a resource
this paper, the objects that will eventually comprise the whole
collection can grow richer with alternatives and thereby provide
resource are most easily discovered and used if they have their
more complete access.
own metadata, as well as if the composite has its own metadata.
2.5.3 Dynamic and Static Content Publishing This is considered quite reasonable practice in the metadata
Where content is to be stored ready for presentation to learners, world.
it may be in complete resource form or it may be held as objects Two metadata sets, the IEEE LOM and the Dublin Core
that will be accumulated and presented within a template at the Metadata Set (described below) together account for a vast
amount of metadata used in education worldwide. It is essential specifications. The other specifications necessary for the
that interoperability be maintained among the different AccessForAll approach are for the description of the
communities using metadata but also across sectors such as accessibility characteristics of resources and components.
education, e-government, e-commerce, e-health and other The specifications developed by the IMS/DCMI collaboration
activities that want to share resources. The approach described contain an information model that can be implemented in a
in this paper was explicitly developed to be compatible with variety of ways. A typical implementation at the time of writing
both IEEE LOM and DCMI metadata. is likely to be in eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and so
• IEEE LOM [9] there is an XML binding and schema to accompany the model.
The IEEE LOM (Institute of Electrical and Electronics The metadata specification for describing content has specific
Engineers' Learning Object Metadata Standard) is a data structures within it that directly map to the data structures
profile for learning object metadata. It contains a in the specification for describing preferences for how content
description of semantics, vocabulary, and extensions. should be presented to the learner. Understanding the learner
An encoding of accessibility metadata that harmonizes profile model, the AccLIP makes understanding the resource
with AccessForAll metadata and is suitable for use in profile model, the AccMD, a lot easier as the latter is derived
an IEEE LOM Application is under construction by from the former.
CEN-ISSS Learning Technologies Workshop [10].
2.6.1 The AccLIP Model
• Dublin Core Metadata Element Set [11]
The AccLIP information model is for a detailed machine-
The Simple Dublin Core Metadata Element Set is the
readable description of a learner’s needs and preferences in the
ISO 15836 standard for core metadata. There is also a
way they interact with the computer. This includes information
Qualified Dublin Core Metadata Element Set with
about any accommodations the learner may need in the way that
additional terms and extensions. Dublin Core metadata
content is presented to them and display and control approaches
is not domain specific. Dublin Core elements include a
they may adopt when using the computer.
new special one for accessibility to be used for
AccessForAll metadata. The AccLIP model includes accommodations and approaches
needed or adopted by learners with disabilities but is more
2.5.6 Accessibility and eLearning systems general than that. There are no elements that enable a
A key challenge in accessibility is the diversity of need; description of a learner’s disability by medical classification to
different people require different accommodations. Established be declared, nor should there be. The description is of the
approaches towards addressing this are to allow customization preferred human computer interaction approaches and preferred
by the end learner (e.g. text size and color) and to offer content characteristics needed to enable the envisaged
alternative presentations of the same content where automatic automated functions of the system to be implemented. It is in
customization is not possible (e.g. text description of diagrams line with the philosophical stance that moves away from a
or audio descriptions of video content). medical model of disability to a social one.
Integrated eLearning systems potentially offer an efficient way
of managing and even extending this. They can personalize the
2.6.1.1 The AccMD Model
way the interface and the content are presented to the learner The AccMD model is for metadata that expresses a resource’s
and further, which content is presented to the learner can be ability to match the needs and preferences of a learner’s AccLIP
determined by the system on the basis of stored information profile. It is intended to assist with resource discovery and also
about the individual learner and their preferences. provides an interoperable framework that supports the
substitution and augmentation of a resource or resource
Such eLearning systems offer the educational institutions the component with equivalent or supplementary components as
opportunity to efficiently manage their requirement to meet the required by the accessibility needs and preferences in a learner’s
needs of their disabled students. If they implement student AccLIP profile. For example, a text caption could be added to a
profiles and adopt the AccessForAll approach, the system will video when required by a learner with a hearing impairment or
“know” how best to present content and interfaces to each in a noisy environment.
individual learner. If they implement the approach for the
metadata of the content stored in their repositories, then the In general, metadata can be used for two main accessibility
system can automatically offer the learning content, and other related purposes: to record compliance to an accessibility
information, in the most appropriate format to meet individual specification or standard (e.g., for adherence to legislated
learner needs. Furthermore, disabled students and their faculty procurement policies) or to enable the delivery of resources that
or advisors will be able to instigate automated searches of the meet a learner’s needs and preferences. The AccMD
content associated with any particular course or module, and specification addresses the latter purpose. Metadata to assert
determine if any of it presents particular accessibility problems compliance to an accessibility specification or standard is not
for that student. With this information, they will be able to within the scope of this specification. It may be useful, however,
commission alternative formats of the same content or locate an if it is in a form that allows it to be transformed and re-purposed
alternative learning activity ahead of time if that is more as AccMD metadata.
appropriate. 2.6.1.2 Overview of the AccMD Information Model
2.6 The Information Models The AccMD specification is defined in terms of two basic
classes that are then further refined and detailed. A description
A detailed description of use of cascading learner profiles and of
is either of a resource or an . This
the preferences and requirements that can be recorded in a
mirrors a common practice in the accessibility world for an
learner’s profile is a necessary part of the AccessForAll
equivalent to be produced not by the original author of the
resource but by someone else, that person or organization having object, the process of matching the resource to the learner’s
expert knowledge of how to make that resource accessible in the needs and preferences can begin.
specific context. A typical diagram showing the behaviors of systems using the
A resource could contain its own equivalents (such as an image metadata specified in the AccessForAll model is below (Figure
with alternative text description) and therefore could have a 2).
primary and one or more equivalent resource descriptions.
A primary description is very simple and consists of a simple
2.8 Pilot Projects
Three projects described briefly here illustrate the diversity of
classification of the access modalities of the resource with terms
application where the approach offers real benefit to both the
selected from hasVisual, hasAuditory, hasText and hasTactile.
end-learners and the service providers.
For each modality a simple binary judgment can be made as to
whether that access modality is required for the resource to be 2.8.1 TILE
useful. The Inclusive Learning Exchange [15] (TILE) is a learning
A primary resource description can also have links to EARL object repository developed by the Adaptive Technology
[12] statements recording machine-readable adaptability Resource Centre at the University of Toronto that implements
properties that describe the transformability and flexibility for both AccMD and AccLIP. When authors (educators) use the
interface control of the resource. EARL is the Evaluation And TILE authoring tool to aggregate and publish learning objects,
Report Language, a Resource Description Framework (RDF) they are supported in creating and appropriately labeling
language developed by W3C that can express the outputs of transformable aggregate lessons (codified by the TILE system
evaluation and repair processes in machine-readable form. using AccMD). Learners of the system define their learner
Typically, EARL statements contain the results of evaluation preferences, which are stored as IMS-AccLIP records. TILE
processes operated or managed by tools that can execute tests, then matches the stated preferences of the learner with the
possibly with some human intervention and guidance. The desired resource configuration by transforming or re-aggregating
AccMD specification references EARL statements, to describe the lesson.
the display transformability and control flexibility of a primary
resource. Such EARL statements are metadata with the 2.8.2 Web-4-All
constraint that they make it clear when the statements were The Web-4-All [16] project is a collaboration between the
made and by whom. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre at the University of
Toronto and the Web Accessibility Office of Industry Canada to
A primary resource description can contain a pointer to an help meet the public Internet access needs of Canadians with
equivalent for the resource or for a part of it. Equivalent disabilities and literacy issues. Web-4-All allows learners to
resource descriptions provide a mechanism whereby an quickly and automatically configure a public access computer
alternative (i.e. replacement for) or supplementary for a resource using a learner preferences profile implemented with the AccLIP
or part of a resource can be provided. The distinction between and stored on a smartcard that the learner keeps and can take
these is made with a Boolean field “supplementary”, the from one public workstation to the next. When the smart card is
interpretation being that if this is false then it is an alternative. read by the workstation, the Web4All software automatically
An equivalent resource description will have a link to the object configures the operating system, browser and necessary assistive
and part for which it is an equivalent. For the case where an technology according to the learner’s AccLIP. These settings are
object contains its own alternatives this will be a link to itself. returned to their default values and applications terminated once
An equivalent or supplementary object may need to be the card is removed in preparation for the next learner. This
synchronized with the primary or other objects and so there may significantly reduces the technical support required for the
also be a synchronization file. public workstations, avoids conflict between the assistive
The final part of a resource description according to the AccMD technologies used by consecutive learners and allows the learner
specifications is data drawn from the range of values in AccLIP to begin using the workstation without lengthy manual
fields. For example, the elements defined in reconfiguration. If the assistive technology requested by a
the class match the learner is not available on a workstation, the program will
values defined in the AccLIP specification. launch and configure the closest approximation.
The AccMD specification [13] provides guidance on how to 2.8.3 PEARL
match accessibility metadata (i.e. a resource profile) to the The PEARL project (Practical Experimentation by Accessible
properties defined in the AccLIP specification (i.e., a learner Remote Learning [17]) was an early European Commission
profile). It also defines the behavior applications should exhibit funded project led by the Open University, UK. It developed a
in some specific contexts; see the Best Practice Guide [14] for technical framework teaching laboratories for science and
more information. While AccLIP and AccMD are designed to engineering to be offered to students remotely. One motivations
work together, there is no prescription about how they should be for this was to increase the participation of disabled students in
implemented beyond necessary behaviors that should be these subjects by offering enhanced access to practical work.
standardized for the sake of interoperability. Hence accessibility was a priority for the project.
The project implemented a learner interface approach in which
2.7 The Process of Matching Learners with interfaces were generated “on the fly” from XML descriptions
Resources of all the interface elements and the type of interaction they
Given metadata about the learner’s needs and preferences and supported. The project explored an extension to this approach
metadata about the accessibility characteristics of the resource or where, as well as XML descriptions of the activity and its
Figure 2. Behaviours for AccessForAll interoperability.
control and display elements, the “interface generator” was
presented as an XML description of the learner and how they 5. REFERENCES
preferred to use their computer. This learner description was [1] WAI Content Guidelines for creating accessible Web
based on the then current draft IMS LIP pages: http://www.w3.og/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
elements. It was possible to optimize the interface for individual [2] Cooper M., Communications and Information Technology
learners taking into account, as examples, assistive technology (C&IT) for Disabled Students, in: Powell S. (ed.), Special
requirements or the fact that students might be working hands- Teaching in Higher Education- Successful Strategies for
free. Access and Inclusion, (Kogan Page) London 2003
[3] http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp
3. FUTURE WORK AND CONCLUSION
The AccessforAll specifications show how the AccessForAll [4] http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/
strategy can be implemented. They are not prescriptive about the [5] (see W3C/WAI ER).
encoding that should be used. Significantly, they are not
[6] http://www.microsoft.com/enable/research/ and
prescriptive about what constitutes accessibility. There are
http://webstandardsgroup.org/resources/documents/doc_31
endless opportunities, given the model and strategy, to take
7_brettjacksontransitiontoxhtmlcss.doc
further advantage of new technologies.
[7] http://www.w3c.org/TR/ATAG10/
The Semantic Web offers one obvious technology that will be
enabled by the AccesForAll approach. Already the [8] Metadata Principles and Practicalities, available at:
AccessForAll specifications recommend using EARL so that the http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html
metadata will be as flexible and rich as possible. The range of [9] IEEE 14.84.12.1 - 2002 Standard for Learning Object
other extensions includes opportunities for valuable cross- Metadata: http://ltsc.ieee.org
lingual exchanges to suit learner needs as well as cross-
disciplinary changes of emphasis. Applications and Web [10] http://www.cen-aplr.org
services that transform resources or resource components to suit [11] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: http://dublincore.org/
the needs of users with cognitive disabilities is a huge area that
[12] See: http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/
has hitherto not received the attention it deserves.
[13] IMS AccessForAll Meta-data Information Model Version
The authors wish to contribute to the valuable work being done
1.0 Final Specification, available at:
by others and welcome involvement in their work.
http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accmdv1p0/imsacc
md_infov1p0.html
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[14] IMS AccessForAll Meta-data Best Practice and
Our thanks to Anastasia Cheetham and David Weinkauf for their
Implementation Guide Version 1.0 Final Specification,
wonderful work on the information model and associated
available at:
documentation that has made everyone’s work so easy.
http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accmdv1p0/imsacc
md_bestv1p0.html
[15] http://www.inclusivelearning.ca/
[16] http://web4all.ca
[17] http://iet.open.ac.uk/pearl