1

User-Centric Technologies: Accessibility

Jutta Treviranus

Director

Adaptive Technology Research Centre

University of Toronto

2

3 Approaches to Accessibility

1. Single compliant resource approach: a single resource that is accessible to everyone.

2. Two version approach: a media rich default version and an “accessible version”

3. Personal optimization approach

3

Single Compliant Resource•Rejection of valuable resources that are

not compliant • “Accessible for everyone but optimal for

no-one”• Time and expertise required of all resource

creators•Reluctance to use new or innovative

technologies• Pit innovation against accessibility

4

“Two Versions” Approach

• “Accessible” version not maintained and becomes outdated

• Unequal access to resource

• People with disabilities not a homogenous group

5

Disability in eLearning Context

• Disability= Mismatch between learner needs and education offered

• Not a personal trait but artifact of relationship between the learner and the learning environment or education delivery

• Accessibility= The ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners

6

Accessibility =

• Flexibility of education environment, curriculum and delivery

• Availability of adequate alternative-but-equivalent content and activities

7

Accessibility through Personalization

• To optimize the learning experience for each individual learner

8

Personal Optimization Alternative

• A transformable, flexible resource system

• Dynamically matching resources and resource delivery to needs of each individual

9

Specifications and Standards to Support Personal Optimization

• “AccessForAll” Standards• http://imsglobal.org/accessibility/index.html

• ISO 24751

10

AccessForAll

2 Parts

1. Common language to express personal needs and preferences with respect to resource, user interface and delivery environment

2. Common language to describe resources so that they can be matched to personal needs and preferences

11

Metadata

• AccessForAll resource description elements added to LOM, DCMI and CanCore application profile

• http://www.cancore.ca/guidelines/drd/

12

Current Implementations

TransformAble (3 Web Services)1. PreferAble 2. StyleAble3. SenseAble

Implemented in Sakai (http://sakaiproject.org)

Fluid Project (http://fluidproject.org)

13

The Fluid Project is funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

14

The domain…

• Community source

• Open source

• Academic web applications

15

Problem

• Systemic problem of poor and inconsistent UI• Frequently left to programmers• Tackled at the end• Redundantly developed• Inadequately tested and refined• UX designers not well integrated into development

culture• And….

16

“You say tomato, I say tomato, lets call the whole thing off”

• Academic communities are very diverse

• We differ greatly in our preferences, needs, habits, concepts, comforts, convictions….

17

“Different strokes for different folks…”

• Institutional preferences and branding• Conventions of academic discipline• Cultural differences• Linguistic differences• Differences related to age• Differences related to role and perspective• Different teaching approaches• Different learning approaches• Disability and environmental constraints

18

Goal: Consistent User Experience

• Growing number of tools• Growing number of developers

• A consistent identifiable look• Intuitiveness and transparency of

design

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

19

Consistent User Experience vs.

Accommodating Differences

• Do we need to choose?

• Or can we have our cake and eat it too?

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

20

Proposal: “Flexible User Interface”

• Swappable styles

• Swappable UI components

• Either runtime transformation for unique needs of individual

• Or customization at configuration

21

Vision

• Advance status of UI development and design in academic community source projects

• …so that they can fulfill their potential as platforms for innovation

UI = user interface, user interaction, user experience, usability and accessibility

22

2 Interwoven Approaches

1. Address systemic or process shortcomings as well as education and awareness

2. Address barriers related to the software, architecture and tools

23

Supporting Objectives

To develop:• Architectural framework for a flexible UI• Living library of robust, usable, accessible UI

components• Community processes that support innovative, high

quality user experience design and development• Tools and processes for developing and

implementing modular, sharable UI components• Mechanisms for refining components

24

UI Components

• http://fluidproject.org