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!
| Column1header | Column2header | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Row1 header | Column1 Row1 | Column2 Row1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Row2 header | Column1 Row2 | involve presentation.tag. The | tag may use the “abbr” attribute to provide abbreviated table column headers, which helps screen reader users navigate more quickly. Tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers require markup to associate data cells and header cells, as specified by the W3C (2000, Section 5.1.2): 1. Identify structural groups of rows (THEAD for repeated table headers, TFOOT for repeated table footers and TBODY for other groups of rows) and groups of columns (COLGROUP and COL. Table rows may be grouped into a table head, table foot and one or more table body sections, using the THEAD, TFOOT and TBODY elements, respectively. This division enables user agents to support scrolling of table bodies independently of the table head and foot. When long tables are printed, the table head and foot information may be repeated on each page that contains table data (Figure 12). 2. Label table elements | and | with the “scope,” “headers” and “axis” attributes so that future browsers and adaptive technologies will be able to select data from a table by filtering on categories. The headers attribute specifies a list of header cells (row and column labels) associated with the current data cell, requiring each header cell to have an “id” attribute. Scope specifies the set of data cells to be associated with the current header cell. Axis identifies categories within a table (Section 5.1.2). 72 Condit-Fagan Figure 12: A table with organizational elements
The above complexity highlights a great advantage to the scripting solution provided later in the chapter: transformation of tables into linear text without the use of the scope, headers and axis attributes. Links Although hyperlinks are usually text, there is an HTML attribute for the tag, “title,” that allows developers to specify a value of the “title” attribute that clearly and accurately describes the target of the link (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 2000, Section 6.1, para. 8). This allows the developer freedom to choose link text that makes sense, but also describe the link target, as in Figure 13. Although the use of “click here” should be limited, one could use the “title” attribute to explain what will happen if the users “click there.” Figure 13: Making the link descriptive Web site text: “The capital of Illinois is Springfield, located approximately in the center of the state” HTML tag: Text-Only Alternatives 73 Forms Forms can be rendered into text equivalents more easily if form elements are grouped. For example, an order form may feature personal information, item information and payment information. To this end, developers may use the FIELDSET element and label those units with the LEGEND element (Figure 14). Also, labels for form elements should be placed before the form element to which they correspond. For an order form, the label “First Name:” should appear before the input box, where the user should type his/her first name (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, 2000, Section 11.3). TEXT-ONLY WEB APPLICATIONS So what kinds of Web software use text-only pages? What exactly should developers design pages for? Text-only Web clients, that include text-only Web browsers and viewers, file transfer programs, and telnet functionality, exist for several purposes. Some Web users prefer text-only Web browsers, because they work well with adaptive technology such as screen readers. Other users may have to work with slower modems that have poor connection times and want to use a text-only browser to access information quickly. Finally, Web developers may use text-only clients to check how accessible their Web applications are. There are several applications that rely on the use of text equivalents to function properly. These applications enable disabled Web users to retrieve information from Web documents. Figure 14: Fieldset and legend elements Personal Information First name: Last name: …more personal information fields would go here… Item Information ... information about an item to order... 74 Condit-Fagan Screen Readers Screen readers are used frequently by the visually impaired to do many computer tasks, not just browse the Web. Screen readers interact with the operating system itself, for example, allowing Windows desktop navigation and, therefore, will read many mainstream applications based on the operating system, such as Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer. Keyboard, mouse or voice commands used in the browser will overlap those used with the rest of the operating system, and include cursor movement, application actions such as following hyperlinks and program actions such as opening and closing files and windows (Bosher and Brewer, 2001). Dynamic Braille Dynamic Braille displays raised or lowered dot patterns on command from the computer, resulting in a line of Braille that changes from moment to moment. The user then rests his or her fingers on the display. According to the W3C, “current Dynamic Braille displays range in size from one cell (six or eight dots) to an eightycell line, most having between twelve and twenty cells per line” (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs, I., 1999b, "Glossary" section, “Braille”). Screen Magnifiers Screen magnifiers allow the visually impaired to adapt their screens to a comfortable magnification. In addition to magnifying the screen, these programs also assist in tracking and scrolling. “Tracking refers to moving the view to the appropriate area of the screen at the appropriate times. For example, if the user presses ALT + F in Internet Explorer, which opens the File menu, the magnified view should jump to the File menu, which may not have previously appeared onscreen. Scrolling is similar to a nonmagnified screen, except that a user is also scrolling left to right as well as up and down, and should be smooth without flickering. Screen magnifiers may also allow the user to change colors and other format options, and may include speech support for screen readers. Further explanation of these features and reviews of several commercial screen magnifiers can be found on the Screen Magnifiers Reviews Page (http://www.magnifiers.org/ testintro2.html). Graphical Browsers with Adaptive Technology Several Web browsers incorporate features that work well with adaptive technology. Internet Explorer, for example, has many features included: • Full support for Microsoft Active Accessibility technology, which lets compatible assistive technology work more effectively. For example, screen Text-Only Alternatives 75 readers can navigate tables and frames and read them to the user in proper order or read the names of images displayed on the screen. • The ability to fully display the description for each image when images are not displayed and to display it in any color. • Greatly improved keyboard access to Web pages and to Help • The ability to move the system caret, allowing older assistive technology to read or magnify the right information when the user navigates with the keyboard • The ability to remove all toolbars and scrollbars from the screen, making more text visible to users who have cognitive disabilities or prefer larger fonts (Microsoft, 2001) Perhaps the most flexible Web browser available is Amaya, W3C’s test-bed browser and Web editor. Amaya has versions for Windows 95/98/ME, Windows NT and UNIX. Amaya’s flexibility comes partially from its separation of structure from content: Amaya always represents the document internally in a structured way consistent with the Document Type Definition (DTD). A properly structured document enables other tools to further process the data safely … Amaya allows you to display the document structure at the same time as the formatted view, which is portrayed diagrammatically on the screen (Vatton, 2001). Arachne is a graphical browser for MS-DOS. Its advantage is its tiny size and memory requirements: it can be easily configured to run with just 4 MB of RAM, and after special customization, the DOS version runs on devices with 1 MB of RAM, while the application is stored in 1MB of ROM. Arachne, therefore, is ideal for palmtops and cell phones or older computers like 386s. If your text-only user is short on recent hardware, this browser may prove a great boon (Arachne Labs, 2001). A similar browser to Arachne in size but perhaps with less support is NetTamer (Net-Tamer, Inc., 2001). Text-Only Browsers Text-only browsers display only text. They can process media-rich pages, but render the nontext elements into the best text format they can. Here is where all the text alternatives become important, because if they are not provided, the user is left with a number of blanks or incomplete information. Perhaps the most famous text only browser is LYNX, which has existed in open-release form since 1995 (Lynx Developers). LYNX is fully documented and includes guidelines for writing LYNX-friendly Web pages. A special configuration of this browser, BLYNX, makes it particularly effective for blind and visually impaired users; more information 76 Condit-Fagan about BLYNX can be found at http://leb.net/blinux/blynx/ (Rosmaita, 1997). This configuration associates a number with each hyperlink, allowing linearly listed links to be heard clearly and identifying embedded links so the user knows they exist, where they are, and after following them, return to the body of the document and resume reading where he/she left off. Other similar browsers exist, some with different functionalities, including MIRA (http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/ mira/mira.html). For those who only wish to test their Web pages in a text-only browser, textonly viewers are available. These include Lynx Viewer (http://www.delorie.com/ Web/lynxview.html), and Text Only Browser Filter (http://www.inode.org/sw/ lynxfilter/). These programs allow one to use a graphical browser such as Netscape to see what their page would look like as viewed through a text-only browser without installing and using the text-only browser itself. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND BROWSERS The number of output devices and browser features that will be invented is only limited by human creativity—that is to say, developers should expect anything to happen. Several examples currently in development are voice-driven navigation systems, image-to-sound converters and e-mail-based Web browsers. Currently, there are several systems that allow voice-driven navigation, including telephone based Web access. WebHearit (http://www.issound.com/technology/productsWebhearit.htm) is “an ActiveX component that allows any Internet Explorer application to 'speak' a Web page’s content and navigational links” and can be used with telephones and personal digital assistants (IsSound Corporation, 2001). SpeecHTML is subscription service from Vocalis, allowing a participating site to provide telephone access using voice commands. A demonstration of SpeecHTML is available at http://www.speechtml.com/demos/speechdemo.html. TelWeb (http:/ /www.drev.dnd.ca/fr/upload/pdf/telwe141.pdf) is an experimental telephone-based information management system including browser access to any site using voice or dialed commands, under development by the Canadian National Defense Department (Defense Research Establishment, 1999). Systems that allow Web pages to be retrieved via e-mail include Agora (http:/ /www.eng.dmu.ac.uk/Agora/Help.txt) and PageGetter (http:// www.pagegetter.com). Both allow Web pages to be retrieved by sending an e-mail message containing the URL of the desired document. With Agora, to retrieve a hyperlinked document, the user has several options, including placing an X before the desired link in a direct reply to the server (Secret and Sasse). Page Getter, a commercially sold product with a few free versions, allows powerful and flexible Text-Only Alternatives 77 retrieval of Web pages by e-mail, with options to include images or request text only (PageGetter.com, 2000). Peter Meijer (1996) has written a program called The vOICe that translates images into sound by varying the pitch of a tone based on coordinates. The program works by playing a tone corresponding to the coordinates of pixels in the image— for a diagonal line from the bottom left to the upper right, the program would play a steadily rising pitch. Perhaps the easiest to grasp application is the audible graphing calculator, viewable at http://www.seeingwithsound.com/winmath.htm. MAKING TEXT-ONLY PAGES: PRACTICAL METHODS AND CASE STUDIES The previous two sections discussed what was required of a text-only page, and what applications benefit from a page that meets these requirements. This section will describe three methods for creating a text-only version of a Web page that work well with text-only Web applications. These include creating an entire reproduction of the Web site in a text-only format, providing text equivalents throughout a Web site, where information is conveyed in media other than text, or using available tools to convert “regular” pages to text-only equivalents “onthe-fly.” For certain Web sites or applications, one might consider making the original Web site itself fully text-only. The advantages to this method are having only one version of the Web site that fulfills all the text-only criteria. These pages also load quickly and easily transform to alternate formats. The disadvantages include little or no creative freedom in designing the layout of the page for visual users. An example of this is the Lynx home page, http://lynx.browser.org/. Although it is plain and simple, it conveys the information equally well to all users. As discussed earlier, one can use graphics and other media on a Web site and still comply with the W3C Guidelines as long as text equivalents are provided. This allows developers more creative freedom with layout and graphics, but does require development and maintenance of all the text equivalents. An example of this can be found at The Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind, http://www.clb.org/. They have provided alt tags for their images and summaries for tables. Particularly note the substantive alt tags for the photographic images at the top of the page. Updating Web pages can still be twice as much work; for example, if an organization has a photographic virtual tour of its offices, with a text-only version, the text needs to be updated any time the graphical tour is updated. It is possible to create a text-only version by hand, painstakingly reproducing the same content that exists on the media-rich Web site or in the Web application. 78 Condit-Fagan This version would need to be updated every time the “main” version of the Web site was updated. An example of a Web site with two complete versions is the University of Maryland home page, http://www.umd.edu/. Click on the text-only link in the upper left-hand corner, and the user is taken to a text-only version. The disadvantage lies in having to maintain two versions of the Web pages; however, it may be easier for the developer to keep the two versions distinct and separate. A solution that addresses most of the above disadvantages while still providing text-only access is to use a scripting program to transform Web pages “on-the-fly” from media-rich pages into text-only Web pages. One example of this can be found at the BBC Web site, http://www.bbc.co.uk/. Clicking on the link for the text-only version transforms the page on-the-fly. On the text-only version, for example, it is clear it has just been transformed, because the current weather is still current. The program which used to accomplish the transformation is called Betsie, a freeware program that can be downloaded and modified to fit the needs of individual Web sites and applications (British Broadcasting Corporation, 1999). With Betsie in place, when a Web browser requests a Web page from the Web server, Betsie transforms the HTML code so that the Web page is rendered into a text-only form. When a user requests a Web page, the request is sent through Betsie. Before sending the page to the user, Betsie makes various changes in the HTML code of the page, removing all the images and formatting, leaving only the text content of the page. Betsie can also move parts of Web pages around: for example, on the BBC site, Betsie moves the navigation bar to the bottom of the page so that a screen reader user gets the information first, but can jump to the navigation bar if desired. Once the user enters the program, all hyperlinks are passed through the Betsie program. Betsie will only work with the site to which it has been configured; links to external links are marked as such so the user understands why the text-only format changes in this case. Note that developers must still write good alternative tags such as “alt,” “longdesc” and “summary,” and provide text equivalents for multimedia presentations. Other features of Betsie include a built in "change settings" page, so the user can specify the font, font size and color settings of their choice (this can also be done with most Web browsers). The default setting is high contrast: yellow text on a black background. Betsie will follow browser redirects and make all frames horizontal. All table-related tags are removed, replacing | with . tags are replaced with their ALT contents and are deleted if there is no ALT tag or if ALT=”” has been used. A link is provided at the bottom of every page to return to the unparsed version of the page. Betsie does not work with forms that require Javascript, since it removes Javascript code from the page, but it will keep Shockwave and Real Audio links intact. Text-Only Alternatives 79 Betsie is written in Perl and is open source, so that Web developers can modify its behavior to be right for their site. The Betsie home page lists several sites that are Betsie enhanced; one site that has implemented Betsie after significant modification is the Morris Library Web site. An Example of A Betsie Implementation Morris Library is a large, academic library at a public university. Its Web pages provide access to hundreds of online indexes, databases and other resources. Although the site was not graphics intensive, it used tables to organize information about the indexes into a readable layout for sighted users. For example, clicking on any of the letters of the alphabet from http://www.lib.siu.edu/cgi-bin/encore2/ articles provides the user with a table listing indexes that start with A, and five columns of information about each index. To some screen readers, however, these tables translated very poorly, because they read across the screen one line at a time, ignoring the table data cells. Our Web programmer modified Betsie’s handling of tables, forms and Javascript so that it would work with this site. Instead of replacing | tags with tags, the program now linearizes the table so that each row still appears on the same line. The script looks for | and | tags and uses their contents as labels for each item in a row. Thus, the label from theprecedes each | cell within the row, identifying which column the data is in. At the time Morris Library implemented the modified version of Betsie, the program did not address forms, so the Library’s programmer added code to handle forms, ensuring that labels were appropriately grouped with their corresponding elements. Since many of the Web site’s forms use Javascript, the programmer also modified Betsie so that it does not strip out the Javascript code for the forms. Because our site uses server side to provide the header and footer to our pages, our programmer also had to modify Betsie to get the header and footer files and add them to the bottom of each page. Internal links at the top of each page allow the user to jump quickly to the navigation links that they contain. Since implementation, the modified version of Betsie has needed little alteration. Current concerns relate to making new Web pages compatible with the Betsie settings we implemented and working with database vendors to make Web search interfaces more accessible. Although we do not have control over the code used by database vendors, libraries have a powerful customer voice, and we hope to use it to encourage accessible interfaces. CONCLUSION 80 Condit-Fagan There are several methods for Web developers to provide a text-only version of a Web site. For developers with programming expertise, using a parsing program may be the most elegant and efficient solution. The greatest advantage is the confidence that the text-only version is as up-to-date as the main site, with little or no extra maintenance. Even developers with only a little programming knowledge could install an open source program like Betsie, although customizing it as described above might be a challenge. For those with small Web sites or no programming expertise, developers must pay close attention to the text-only version when updating the “main version” of a Web site. If multiple people are responsible for maintaining Web pages, reminding them of their responsibilities relating to the text-only version is imperative. Finally, developers should consider using a completely text-only approach when documents convey only textual information. Text-only means freedom to display information in the most accessible or convenient format possible for a wide variety of hardware, software and users. REFERENCES Arachne Labs. (2001). Arachne WWW Browser. Retrieved November 14, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://arachne.browser.org/. Bosher, P. and Brewer, J. (2001). Alternative Web Browsing. July 5. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ References/Browsing#1. British Broadcasting Corporation. (1999). BBC Education Betsie Site, December 13. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/index.html. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G. and Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (2000). HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, November 6. Retrieved November 14, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#long-descriptions. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G. and Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999a). Core Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, May 5. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/ WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#text-equivalent. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., and Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999b). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, May 5. Retrieved November 1, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10. Chisholm, W., White, J. and Vanderheiden, G. (Eds.). (2001). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, August 24. Retrieved November 5, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20. Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind. (2001). Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind— Text-Only Alternatives 81 Independence is Our Vision, November 19. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clb.org/. Defense Research Establishment. TelWeb: A multimedia information infrastructure. (1999). Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.drev.dnd.ca/fr/upload/pdf/telwe141.pdf. IsSound Corporation. (2001). IsSound. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.issound.com/technology/productsWebhearit.htm. Lynx Developers. Lynx information. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://lynx.browser.org/. Meijer, P. (1996). The Voice—Seeing with Sound, February 15. Retrieved February 20, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.seeingwithsound.com/voice.htm. Microsoft Corporation. (2001). Older versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer. November 1. Retrieved November 17, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/products/ie.htm. Net-Tamer, Inc. DOS Internet browser for dial-up PPP connections! Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nettamer.net/ tamer.html. PageGetter.com. (2000). PageGetter.com—Bringing the information and resources of the Internet to email users, June. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pagegetter.com. Peek, R. (1999). New devices are offering the Web "to-go." Information Today, April, 16(4), 46–47. Rosmaita, G. J. (1997). Blynx: Speech-friendly Lynx help files, September 16. Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://leb.net/ blinux/blynx/. Secret, A., and Sasse, H. (Eds.). (No date). Agora: Retrieving WWW documents through mail. Retrieved November 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.eng.dmu.ac.uk/Agora/Help.txt. Vatton, I. (2001). Amaya overview. August 24. Retrieved November 17, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/Amaya/Amaya.html. W3C. (2001). HyperText markup language activity statement, October 26. Retrieved November 16, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity. 82 Condit-Fagan Part III Implementing Web Accessibility in Distance Education Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 83 Chapter V Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide Sheryl Burghstahler University of Washington, USA ABSTRACT Web-based distance learning programs promise learning options anywhere, anytime, to anyone. However, some individuals with disabilities are locked out of these opportunities when courses are designed in such a way that they are inaccessible to individuals using assistive technology. This chapter provides an overview of access challenges for people with disabilities; suggestions for course developers on creating accessible courses; and suggestions for administrators on developing accessiblity policies, guidelines, and procedures. INTRODUCTION Virtual learning, online learning, distance learning, Web-based learning, distributed learning, E-learning—whatever you call it, the proliferation of Web– based educational programs promises to revolutionize the field of education. The Internet has the potential to deliver instruction anywhere, anytime to anyone who has access to a computer and the Internet. However, with respect to technology Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 84 Burghstahler ownership, a digital divide separates the “haves” from the “have-nots.” Poverty, race, ethnicity and disability contribute to putting some people on the wrong side of this digital divide. The “have-nots” sit in stark contrast to the “haves,” who are blessed with the benefits that new technologies promise (United States Department of Commerce, 1999; Kaye, 2000). Options for taking courses, teaching courses and pursuing careers are limited by their “have-not” status. But being a “have” with respect to technology is not enough. Within the group of “haves,” some people face a “second digital divide.” This line separates people who can make full use of today’s technological tools, services and resources from those who cannot. According to a National Science Foundation letter, “access implies the ability to find, manipulate and use information in an efficient and comprehensive manner” (Lesk, 1998, p. 1). People with disabilities who are on the right side of the first digital divide, too often find themselves on the wrong side of this second digital divide (Waddell, 1999). They have technology but do not have full access to all of the benefits it delivers to others. For example, Imke Durre, who is blind, recently graduated with a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Washington. To complete her studies, including advanced mathematics and science courses, she became a power computer user. Braille translation software and a refreshable Braille display allow her to access any text presented on a computer screen. This display uses movable plastic pins to produce screen output line by line in Braille. A Braille embosser can be used to print hard copy pages of Braille output. Clearly, Imke is on the right side of the first digital divide. She is a “have.” However, because of the inaccessible design of some applications, Imke sometimes finds herself on the wrong side of the second digital divide. Science Web sites with beautiful graphic displays of atmospheric data are inaccessible to her unless the content of the graphic material is available in text format that her Braille output system can present to her. She cannot access mathematical expressions and equations that are inserted into Web pages as images, unless they are also presented as text (e.g., “one-half” presented as “1/2” rather than as a fraction with a fraction line). It is easy to imagine Imke to be an excellent applicant for a job teaching an established science course offered via distance learning. However, significant rewriting would be needed if the Web pages and other course materials were initially designed in formats that are inaccessible to her. These examples demonstrate how Imke, who owns state-of-the-art computer and assistive technology, sometimes sits on the wrong side of the second digital divide. Assuring that no one finds himself on the “have-not” side of the first digital divide will require the work of many sectors of our society—political, educational, social, business, legal and governmental. The second digital divide, however, is an “easier” problem to tackle. This divide can be completely eliminated if librarians, Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 85 educators, distance learning course developers, businesses, government agencies, community services and others design information resources and services to be accessible to everyone. This simple concept is difficult to implement, because it requires that a large number of people and organizations embrace the concept of “universal design.” They must understand the access issues that individuals with disabilities experience; learn and apply design techniques that assure accessibility; and develop policies, procedures and evaluation techniques within their organizations that support full access for everyone. UNIVERSAL DESIGN “Universal design” is defined by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (The Center for Universal Design, p. 1). At this Center, a group of product developers, architects, environmental designers and engineers established a set of principles of universal design. When these principles are applied to the design of products, environments and communication and other electronic systems, they are accessible to the broadest audience. Their application results in products more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost, thereby benefiting people of all ages and abilities. These principles include, but are not limited to the following: (a) the design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities; (b) it accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities; (c) communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities; and (d) the design can be used efficiently and comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue, regardless of a user’s body size, posture or mobility. When architects apply universal design principles to the design of buildings, the structures they create can be used by everyone, including employees who use wheelchairs for mobility, visitors who push children in strollers and delivery workers carting heavy boxes. Similarly, those who develop distance learning courses can create learning environments that allow all potential students and instructors to access course content and fully participate in activities by applying universal design principles. They minimize, but do not eliminate, the potential need for special accommodations for participants with disabilities. For example, a student who is deaf may still require the use of a sign language interpreter for an on-site retreat that is part of a distance learning course, even though the facility and Web-based course materials are fully accessible. In reviewing the literature on distance learning, the absence of a discussion of universal design principles in general or access issues for students and instructors 86 Burghstahler with disabilities in particular is startling; there are few exceptions (e.g., Burgstahler, 1997; Hricko, 2000). A few printed publications apply universal design principles to instruction in general (e.g., Bar and Galluzzo, 1999; Bowe, 2000). Although a number of published articles, many in publications for librarians, focus on accessible Web design, few educational Web sites have been found to be fully accessible to people with disabilities (Schmetzke, 2001). Only a few published works in traditional print media discuss access issues for people with disabilities as they apply to the wide variety of technologies and strategies used in today’s distance learning programs (e.g., Burgstahler, 2000; Kessler and Keefe, 1999). It is unlikely that a distance learning course will be accessible to students and instructors with a broad range of disabilities, unless access issues are considered as the course is being developed. However, few distance learning programs have policies and guidelines that specifically address the accessibility of methods, media and content to students and instructors with disabilities. Comprehensive policies, such as those developed by California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (1999, 2000), are rare. These guidelines were developed in response to a statewide compliance review conducted by the United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. The guidelines are designed to ensure that all students with disabilities have full access to distance learning offerings and printed materials and include access issues and remedies for print media, audioconferencing, live videoconferencing/video transmission, prerecorded video transmission, World Wide Web and instructional software. ACCESS CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS So, what are the specific access challenges faced by students and instructors in distance learning courses? How can they be overcome? To answer these questions, we must consider all of the media and strategies that Web-based distance learning courses employ (Burgstahler, 2002). Examples follow. On-Site Instruction Sometimes Web-based courses require one or more place-bound meetings as part of their programs. These include interactive video sessions, as well as proctored examinations and instructional retreats. In these cases, typical physical access considerations apply. For example, the facility should be wheelchair accessible, the furniture should be flexible enough to accommodate wheelchair users and accessible restrooms and parking areas should be available nearby. Instructors should also read aloud and describe text and other visual materials for those who cannot see them. To facilitate access for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, instructors should speak clearly and face students. Sign language Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 87 interpreters and sound amplification systems should be provided upon request. Note-takers, extended time on tests and other standard accommodations may need to be provided for students with learning disabilities. If students use on-site equipment to access resources as part of a distance learning course, then those computers must be equipped with appropriate assistive technology to make them accessible to participants with disabilities. Printed Materials A statement about the availability of alternate formats for printed materials and other disability-related accommodations should be included in all promotional materials, along with procedures for requesting accommodations. Students who are blind or who have limited vision may require that printed materials be converted into Braille, large print, audiotape or electronic formats. Tactile drawings may need to be created for some visual content. Some students with learning disabilities that make it difficult for them to read may also use audiotaped books. Producing materials in Braille, in tactile form or on audiotape can take a long time. Providing all of the text of printed materials online may provide the best solution for many individuals who cannot read standard printed materials but have access to the Internet. Printed materials must be selected early in order to assure that alternative formats such as Braille and audiotape can be created, so that all students receive course materials at the same time. Internet-Based Communication Some students in Web-based distance learning courses use real-time “chat” for communication with instructors and fellow students. In this case, participants communicate synchronously (at the same time). Synchronous communication presents scheduling challenges. It is also difficult or impossible to use by someone who cannot communicate quickly. For example, someone with a learning disability who takes a long time to compose his thoughts might be unable to keep up. Similarly, someone with a mobility impairment who is using a computer input method that is slow may not be able to fully participate in class discussions conducted using chat. Instructors who choose to use this type of tool should be sure to provide an alternate method of communication, such as electronic mail, for groups where at least one member cannot fully participate in a chat room discussion. Electronic mail, distribution lists and most discussion forums or bulletin boards are text-based, asynchronous methods of communication that do not erect barriers for students with disabilities. Most Web-based distance learning courses require as a prerequisite that prospective students have access to electronic mail. Therefore, individuals with disabilities will have already located an accessible electronic mail program and gained access to any assistive technology they need in order to use it. 88 Burghstahler E-mail and distribution list communication between individual students, course administration staff, the instructor, guest speakers and other students will be accessible to all regardless of disability. Web Pages Applying universal design principles makes Web pages accessible to individuals with a wide range of abilities and disabilities. In some cases, certain features should be avoided. For example, a distance learning course designer should avoid using a flicker between 2 and 55 hertz, because it might induce seizures in individuals who are susceptible to them. Another example of accessible design is to keep page layouts simple, clear and consistent from page to page; students with low vision and with learning disabilities can benefit from the application of this design principle. Using navigation choices that do not rely on color alone is a simple way to assure that someone who is colorblind can access all of the course materials. Graphics are not accessible to people who are blind and using speech or Braille output systems, but a text alternative to a graphic element, such as ALT text, makes the material accessible. Similarly, whenever audio content is included, text-based equivalent information (e.g., captions or transcriptions) should be provided so that students and instructors who are deaf can access the content. Video Presentations Ideally, whenever videotapes, televised video or video clips are used in a course, captioning is provided for those who cannot hear the audio content. For example, captioning can be added and synchronized with video delivered over the Internet (e.g., MAGpie). Video products should also be audio described (i.e., visual content described aurally) for those who cannot see. If the publisher offers captioning and/or audio description, the distance learning program should have a system in place to accommodate students who have sensory impairments. For example, the institution could hire someone local to sign audio material for a student who is deaf or to describe the visual material to a student who is blind, but this solution could be cumbersome and expensive to implement. Another option to consider is obtaining a transcription of the content in an accessible format. Instructors who are using videoconferencing should be sure to describe visual materials for participants who cannot see them. Real-time captioning (developed by a professional at the time of a presentation) or sign language interpreting should be provided when requested by participants who are deaf. Telephone Conferencing Sometimes, online courses use telephone conferencing technology for small group discussions. Besides creating scheduling challenges for everyone, this mode Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 89 of communication is inaccessible to students who are deaf. When telephone conferencing is available for small group discussions in a course, instructors should allow alternative communication modes (for example, e-mail) that are accessible to everyone in a specific group. In some cases, a student who is deaf may be able to participate in a telephone conference by using the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), where a hearing person types what the speakers say and the words appear on the student’s text telephone (TTY) display. The TRS operator can also read the student’s typed responses for his classmates. This system is best for oneto-one communication; it may be too slow to allow his full participation in group discussions. The TRS service is available at all times of the day at no charge in the United States. Another alternative is to use commercial or public domain Web based “chat” software. The distance learning program provider can create a private chat room where communications can be typed in by a real-time transcriber listening to the conversation. A student who is deaf can read the messages in the chat room as well as write his own to be read on the telephone by an instructor or group leader who is reading the chat room content while participating in the telephone conference. Similar strategies can help a person who cannot speak to participate in discussions. JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN Ethical reasons can be used to justify making distance learning courses accessible to individuals with disabilities (Woodbury, 1998). Many people agree that it is simply the right thing to do. Some consider it to be a diversity issue; it is desirable to attract students with a broad range of characteristics and opinions. Although the focus has been primarily on race, ethnicity and gender in these discussions, disability is gradually being considered in conversations about the value of diversity in educational and employment settings. Applying universal design principles to distance learning programs assures access to a diverse group of participants. For those who are more responsive to legal mandates, legislation provides the incentive to create courses that are accessible to people with disabilities (Waddell and Urban, 2001). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that programs and services that receive federal funds not discriminate on the basis of disability. They must assure that no otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities shall, solely by reason of their disabilities, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination in these programs and services, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 reinforced and extended Section 504, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, state and local government, 90 Burghstahler public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation and telecommunications. It requires that qualified people with disabilities have access to public programs and services, regardless of federal funding, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so. An “individual with a disability” is defined as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA prohibits exclusion, segregation and unequal treatment of this group as participants and as employees. The United States Department of Justice (Patrick, 1996) clarified that the ADA accessibility requirements apply to Web-based programs by stating, “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.” It is clear that, if a qualified individual with a disability enrolls in or applies to teach a distance learning course, the course should be made accessible to him. In 1986, Section 508 was added to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (United States Department of Education, 1998). It requires that federal agencies procure, develop, maintain, and use electronic and information technologies that are accessible to people with disabilities, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so. This legislation seeks to assure that both employees and members of the public can fully access electronic and information resources of the federal government. In 1998, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments expanded and strengthened the technology access requirements of Section 508. In response, the United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) developed accessibility standards to which federal agencies must now comply (Federal Acquisition Regulations, 2001). Although Section 508 and its standards directly apply only to federal agencies, they are expected to have far-reaching impact. For example, the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 included language that requires state agencies of states that receive funding under this Act to comply with Section 508 (Waddell and Urban, 2001; United States Department of Education, 1998). Even those who are not covered entities under Section 508 can use its standards as a model for making their electronic and information resources accessible to people with disabilities. Section 508 standards include those for World Wide Web pages, telecommunications products, video and multimedia products and software. Another good reason to apply universal design principles to distance learning courses is to create better courses for everyone, including both those with and without disabilities. For example, using clear and simple language and navigational mechanisms on Web pages benefits those whose native language is not the one in Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 91 which the course is being taught as well as people with visual and learning disabilities. People who have turned off support for images on their browsers in order to maximize access speed benefit when text alternatives are provided for the content within multimedia, as do people who are blind. Captions on video productions benefit people who work in noisy or noiseless surroundings and people for whom English is a second language as do people with hearing impairments. Making sure that information is not conveyed with color alone benefits those using monochrome monitors in addition to those who are colorblind. Delivering information using multiple formats can benefit students with a variety of information learning styles. DEVELOPING ACCESSIBILITY POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES It is clear that some people with disabilities, including Imke, may not be able to fully access the content of Web-based distance learning courses, even if they have access to computers, assistive technology and the Internet. This situation suggests that distance learning programs should integrate accessibility planning into the earliest stages of the development of their technology-based products. Distance learning programs can follow the leadership of the federal government in being proactive rather then reactive regarding accessibility. “Use of an ‘ad hoc’ or ‘as needed’ approach to IT [information technology] accessibility will result in barriers for persons with disabilities (United States Department of Justice, 2000). Policies Programs that offer distance learning options should develop policies and procedures that assure that their offerings are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Libraries, museums, university departments, businesses and other groups who offer content used in instruction should take steps to assure that their materials are accessible as well. Considerations should include the following (Burgstahler, in press). • Make sure that all stakeholders are represented as accessibility policies, procedures and guidelines are being developed. Include instructors, administrators, technical support staff and people with disabilities. • Explore access challenges that may face potential participants with disabilities in the context of the programs, services and/or resources offered and the tools used for their delivery. • Review the policies, procedures and guidelines that have been created by other organizations. These include Web accessibility guidelines developed by post-secondary campuses as well as the standards for accessible information 92 Burghstahler • • technology developed for federal agencies in response to Section 508. Consult with legal experts to fully understand the requirements for program accessibility mandated by the ADA and other legislation. Develop a general policy statement that commits the organization to making distance learning courses accessible to people with disabilities. Guidelines and Standards When developing accessibility guidelines or standards for a specific program, it is wise to build on the expertise and experiences of others. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999) of the World Wide Web Consortium developed Web accessibility guidelines that have been accepted and applied by many of the Web page developers who, early on, established accessibility as a goal. They are similar to the standards more recently developed by the Access Board in response to Section 508. A few examples of Section 508 guidelines for Web accessibility are listed below: • A text equivalent for every nontext element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt,” “longdesc,” or in element content). • Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example, from context or markup. • Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. • 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. • When electronic forms are designed to be completed online, 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. • When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required. Regarding policies for making videotapes and audio or video clips accessible, distance learning programs can also use the standards of the federal government as a model. Section 508 standards state that training and informational video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, which support the agency’s mission “that contain speech or other audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed captioned.” Closed captioning displays captions with special equipment that is standard on new televisions, and open captioning appears on the display at all times. Further, the standards state that training and informational video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 93 which support the agency’s mission “that contain visual information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be audio described” (Federal Acquisition Regulations Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,” 2001, p. 80526). For developing facility and other on-site and videoconference programs and alternate media for printed materials, distance learning programs can model their approaches after services provided by offices that provide support services for individuals with disabilities on post-secondary campuses. These units have provided these types of accommodations for students with disabilities for many years and can provide a great source of information about policies, procedures,\ and resources. Dissemination, Support and Enforcement Once basic guidelines are developed for making distance learning courses accessible to people with disabilities, it is important to disseminate accessibility policy, guidelines and procedures throughout the organization. Make sure that those who develop courses receive the initial training and ongoing support they need to follow the guidelines. Consider developing a plan to phase in compliance with program accessibility guidelines for previously developed courses, and include a date by which all programs will be compliant. Assign a person or a department within the organization to be responsible for updating disability-related program access policies and guidelines and testing course resources to assure compliance throughout the organization. Regularly evaluate progress toward full accessibility. Special programs (e.g., A-Prompt, Bobby, WAVE) can be used to test the accessibility of Web pages. Accommodation Policies and Procedures Since universal design minimizes, but does not eliminate, the need for disability related accommodations, while taking proactive steps to maximize course accessibility, be sure to develop procedures for responding quickly to requests for disability-related accommodations. This includes providing sign language interpreters and enhanced listening devices for on-site meetings and providing textbooks and other printed materials in alternate formats. Assure that instructors select printed materials early enough to be produced in alternative formats. Standards for acceptable documentation of a disability should be developed. Make sure there are staff members assigned to this function and that strategies are discussed so that accommodations can be arranged in a timely manner. Disabled student services offices on post-secondary campuses provide a good model for policies and procedures in this area. 94 Burghstahler CONCLUSION AND RESOURCES Making a distance learning course accessible to everyone minimizes the number of legal challenges and complaints, supports a diverse student body, creates a better learning environment for everyone and is the right thing to do. Though it will take significant time and societal change to remove the first digital divide, the second digital divide can be eliminated if everyone employs strategies that maximize the use of universal design and minimize the need for special accommodations. Such actions will assure that students like Imke remain on the right side of both digital divides. Those who wish to learn more about creating accessible distance learning courses can start by exploring the following Web sites: • Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Home Page. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ ada/adahom1.htm. • A-Prompt (Accessibility Prompt). http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca. • Bobby. http://www.cast.org/bobby/. • Captioned Media Program. http://www.cfv.org. • Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Universal Design for Learning. http://www.cast.org/udl/. • The Center for Universal Design. http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/. • DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology). http:/ /www.washington.edu/doit. • Disability Statistics Center. http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu. • EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information). http://www.rit.edu/~easi. • Falling Through the Net. http://www.digitaldivide.gov. • MAGpie (Media Access Generator). http://ncam.wgbh.org/Webaccess/magpie. • National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). http://main.wgbh.org/ wgbh/pages/ncam/. • Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic. http://www.rfbd.org/. • Trace Research and Development Center. http://www.trace.wisc.edu/. • WAVE (Web Accessibility Versatile Evaluator). http://www.temple.edu/ inst_disabilities/piat/wave/. • Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. http:// www.w3.org/WAI/. • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Regulations. http://www.ed.gov/offices/ OCR/regs/34cfr104.html. • Section 508 Standards of the Access Board. http://www.access-board.gov/ sec508/508standards.htm. Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 95 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The contents of this chapter is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #9800324) and the United States Department of Education (grant #P33A990042). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the federal government, and readers should not assume their endorsement. The author also acknowledges the contribution of Imke Durre, Ph.D., to the content of this chapter. REFERENCES Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 104 STAT. 327. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/statute.html. Bar, L. and Galluzzo, J. (1999). The Accessible School: Universal Design for Educational Settings. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications. Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal Design in Education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Burgstahler, S. (in press). Distance learning: Universal design, universal access. Electronic Technology Review. Burgstahler, S. (2002). Universal design of distance learning. Information Technology and Disabilities, VIII(1). Burgstahler, S. (2000). Access to Internet-based instruction for people with disabilities. In Petrides, L. A. (Ed.), Case Studies on Information Technology in Higher Education, 76–88. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Burgstahler, S. (1997). Teaching on the net: What’s the difference? T. H. E. (Technology and Higher Education) Journal, 24(9), 61–64. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (1999). Distance Education: Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/dlguidelines/ final%20dl%20guidelines.htm. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2000). Guidelines for Producing Instructional and Other Printed Materials in Alternate Media for Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http:// www.htctu.fhda.edu/amguidelines/am33000.htm. The Center for Universal Design. (no date). What is Universal Design? Retrieved on March 16, 2002, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/ ud.htm. Federal Acquisition Regulations Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2001). Final FAR Rule for Implementing Section 508 of the Rehab Act Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility for 96 Burghstahler Persons with Disabilities .36 CFR Part 1194, April 25. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction =ContentandID=13. Hricko, M. (2000). Designing accessible Web-based courses. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 9(3), 393-401. Kaye, H. S. (2000). Disability and the Digital Divide. Disability Statistics Center, University of California, San Francisco. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/UCSF/pub.taf?_UserReference=AB0505 502005BBEBBF46A6E5and_function=searchandrecid=118andgrow=1. Kessler, D. and Keefe, B. (1999). Going the distance. American School and University, 71(11), 44–46. Lesk, M. E. (1998). November 12. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http:// www.interact.nsf.gov/CISE/html.nsf/html/access?OpenDocument. Patrick, D.L. (correspondence to Senator Tom Harkin, September 9, 1996). Retrieved March 16, 2002, from www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/cltr204.txt. Schmetzke, A. (2001). Online distance education—"Anytime, anywhere" but not for everyone. Information Technology and Disabilities, 7(2). Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv07n2/axel.htm. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. Section 794. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/auxaids.html. United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/fttn99/. United States Department of Education. (1998). QandA: Title IV—Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 Section 508: Electronic and Information Technology. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt 508/archive/deptofed.html. United States Department of Justice. (2000). Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility, Section II, Introduction. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm. Waddell, C. D. (1999). The growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation in the digital economy. Paper presented at the Understanding the Digital Economy Conference, May. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm. Waddell, C. D. and Urban, M. D. (2001). An overview of law and policy for IT accessibility: A resource for state and municipal IT policy makers. International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.icdri.org/an_overview_of_law_.htm. Web-Based Distance Learning and the Second Digital Divide 97 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. (1999). World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.w3.org/tr/wai-Webcontent. Woodbury, M. (1998). Defining Web ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 203–212. 98 Luke & Harrison Chapter VI Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom: Courseware Accessibility Design and Implementation1 Robert Luke and Laurie Harrison University of Toronto, Canada ABSTRACT Providing educational opportunities within online environments, while beneficial, also has the potential to exclude a significant portion of the population. Those who are learning and physically disabled may be prevented from accessing online learning environments due to problems in the design of the technology, as well as with the pedagogy directing the use of this technology. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom was funded by the Office of Learning Technologies (OLT) and examined accessibility within various courseware platforms in order to better assess both the technological and pedagogical issues associated with the general educational shift toward providing learning opportunities within online learning networks.2 This paper presents a summary of the results of this study alongside recommendations for ensuring equitable access within online, coursewareenabled, networked learning. The study data are placed within a framework that examines the technical and pedagogical ramifications of accessibility issues and online learning environments, specifically, courseware environments currently used in today’s online educational market. The findings are compared with the associated guidelines and checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and provide a useful framework for consideration of the Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 99 current challenges and the opportunities at hand for courseware authoring tool developers.3 INTRODUCTION In recent years, the education sector has witnessed an exponential growth in the area of courseware authoring tools to assist in creation of Web-based curriculum and in performing class management tasks. A preliminary study conducted at the Centre for Academic Technology at the University of Toronto (1998) revealed that none of the Web-based courseware tools available at that time addressed accessibility issues in a comprehensive manner. Our subsequent study, Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom (2000),4 showed improvement, as courseware developers are becoming more aware of accessibility issues. However, further significant gains can be made if courseware authoring tool developers take steps to eliminate barriers to access in the Web pages generated automatically by their programs, as well as those uploaded from an external source. Fortunately, courseware tools or applications used to teach at a distance are still in the relatively early stages of development, and new versions are released on a frequent basis. Within the context of the research outlined below, the term “courseware” refers to a server-based course management system that allows integration of a complete course site, including password protection, uploaded course materials, interactive activities, tracking of student progress, etc. Typically, the design occurs via a browser interface catering to the nonprogrammer, using templates and wizards extensively to assist in course content creation. Step-by-step guides support the creation of a range of components, including course home pages, bulletin boards, quizzes and marking systems. Core course content and multimedia components, such as images or audio files, are generally created externally in a specialized software program and imported into the courseware environment. INCLUSION IN AN ELECTRONIC CLASSROOM The Canadian government has recently implemented policy to ensure that legislation providing access to persons with disabilities is applied to digital media, following the WAI guidelines.5 Recent legislation in the United States has also ensured that all online information is accessible to people who rely on adaptive and assistive technologies.6 It is necessary to encourage the design of accessible Web materials from theirfirstiterationusinguniversaldesignprinciples.7 “Improvingaccessibilitybeginswith increased awareness of the potential barriers” (Harrison, 2000), and as we increase our use of courseware to host online components of education, it is necessary to examine 100 Luke & Harrison these environments and the materials hosted to test their accessibility and their functionality. Understanding the barriers faced by those using assistive or adaptive technologies is imperative if we are to improve accessibility. Qualitative data collected within the context of the Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom research project highlights barriers that are evident in one or more products reviewed in this study. Courseware programs reviewed include: • Blackboard CourseInfo v 4.0 (http://www.blackboard.com/) • Web Course in a Box (http://www.wcbcourses.com) • Mallard (v 2000b) (http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/Mallard/) • WebCT v 2.1 (http://www.webct.com/) • Virtual-U v 2.5 (http://www.vlei.com/) • Topclass v 3.1.2 (http://www.wbtsystems.com) The study focused on eight individuals from the following disability groups: Blind, Vision Impaired, Mobility Impaired and Learning Disabled. The study encompassed experienced and inexperienced users. The participants included: 1. One person with quadriplegia who used infrared mouse technology to access a computer 2. One person with moderate vision loss who used screen enhancement technology to enlarge the computer screen 3. Two people with severe vision loss who used screen readers to aid their use of a computer 4. One person who had no residual vision and who relied on a screen reader to access a computer 5. Two people with moderate reading disabilities who used text-to-speech technology to aid comprehension of large blocks of content 6. One person with a severe learning disability who chose not to use assistive technology to access a computer The adaptive technologies used were as follows: Screen Reader: JAWS 3.5 Screen Enhancement: ZoomText Xtra Text-to-Speech: Read and Write 4.0 Onscreen Keyboard: Wivik Alternative Pointing Device: Head Master Plus Each participant was given a series of tasks to accomplish in each of the courseware environments. Specifics tasks required were dependent on the features offered in each environment. Two questionnaires were developed for the study: an intake questionnaire and an observation protocol. The intake questionnaire surveyed participants’ prior 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 101 experience with online learning and accessibility issues and was an adaptation of the Distance Education Survey (DES) developed by the Evnet Group.8 The intake questionnaire surveyed the following: 1. Learning preferences 2. Computer access 3. Computer attitudes 4. Employment and education 5. Disability awareness 6. Personal information The observation protocol was based on courseware features and required the participants to access each feature. The relative accessibility was rated on a fivepoint scale that an observer ranked according to the following: 1. Was unable to access; required the observer to intervene physically (inaccessible) 2. Was able to access with instruction but with no physical help (instructional, how to) 3. Was able to access with a hint (e.g., “try tabbing,” “use the down arrow”) 4. Was able to access but asked for clarification/affirmation (e.g., “Am I in a text area?”) 5. Was able to access without any instruction or physical help from the observer (accessible) These analysis protocols were used to construct accessibility profiles of each courseware with respect to each participant’s particular disability. RESULTS The study found that accessibility depends on (1) the amount of prior experience with network/online technologies; (2) the availability of immediate assistance when problems arose; (3) the presence (or absence) of clear help files; and (4) the extent of familiarity with a given adaptive technology. This last point is important, as some problems with the technology of access inhibited some interactions with course materials and within the learning environment. In these cases, there may exist accessible alternatives or methods for correction, but functional problems with the adaptive technology, or with this technology’s interaction with the courseware or operating system, led to a negative experience in this study. While all participants in the study received training in the use of online technologies and the courseware environments, there were instances when novice users became confused because of inadequate instructions in the courseware. In these cases, courseware developers had assumed a basic technological literacy. 102 Luke & Harrison The data show that this assumption has the potential to exclude novice users or those who have a learning disability and need detailed, step-by-step instructions of what is necessary to fulfill required functions. For example, courseware environments contain no instructions in sections that require students to upload data; it is assumed that students already know how to navigate these kinds of requirements. Help files are either nonexistent or not readily available and were difficult to use for those using screen readers. The data show that it is imperative to provide comprehensive instructions for the use of the courseware environment, as some participants had difficulty using the courseware, even when there were no technical issues hindering access. This pedagogical direction is an important underlying factor that can make or break the success of online learning. ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES BY DISABILITY GROUP The qualitative data gleaned from the study details the limitations each participant faced as a result of disability. The extent to which and how these challenges were overcome reflects the larger purpose of this study: to examine the context in which courseware is used and its relative accessibility in nonschool learning situations. The following are general summaries of accessibility issues by disability group. Blind Blind users have unique obstacles in navigating the information-rich Web environments, which rely to a large extent on visual cues and navigational aids. Blind users of the Web construct mental maps of the pages they visit. This is often time consuming and requires substantial mental effort. As a consequence, it is important that learning environments are clearly and logically laid out and include appropriate navigation aids for people using screen readers. For example, a link to a site map page that explains the relationships between frames and navigation structures is an easy way to ensure that blind users can grasp the learning structure. There are several inaccessible items in courseware that make use of Java based technologies. Components like chats, whiteboards, and progress displays are inaccessible to users who do not have use of the mouse and are instead completely reliant on a keyboard. This also extends to “Browse” buttons (for file uploads) that are not properly programmed and are poorly labeled from elements that have no keyboard equivalents, and thus, are completely inaccessible for those using screen readers. People who rely on screen readers have problems with the use of multiple frames and nested tables, given that older screen readers generally read across a screen and cannot differentiate between regular text and text in columns; newer Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 103 screen readers can accommodate text in tables, though not all blind users may have up-to-date screen readers. Similarly, frames that are either unlabeled or improperly labeled present complications for blind users who are trying to form a mental picture of how the information is being presented and the specific function of each frame (navigation, content, etc.). In addition, surprise pop-up windows can confuse screen readers, as it may not be clear why the window has opened or how the contents of the window are relative to the rest of the site. Other specific problems for blind users can include difficulty with the interaction of the screen reader and the operating system of the computer, the courseware, or both. There are also problems for blind users with inconsistencies in layout and in language used to describe functions and features, resulting in confusion over how to accomplish tasks. While these may not render a function inaccessible, they will cause unnecessary complications in the completion of a given task. Low Vision People with low vision experience problems similar to those experienced by blind students. However, due to the fact that these users can fall back on residual vision, these complications can be less confusing in some instances. Again, problems with the adaptive technology can create accessibility difficulties, although users may more easily overcome these through experience with both the adaptive technologies and online learning environments. One low vision participant in this study experienced problems that were the result of (or were exacerbated by) limited experience with Web navigation and courseware environments in general, inexperience with the adaptive technology and general preconceptions of online learning activities. Challenges experienced by the other low vision participant were a result of problems inherent to the courseware, including the illogical display of steps required for task completion and ambiguous terminology. Learning Disabled Problems encountered by learning disabled participants were largely a result of the technical and pedagogical structures used in the courseware environments. These include inconsistencies in layout and in the language used to explain task requirements, the absence of alternative information formats and the absence of instructions for multistep activities. Learning disabled participants in the study faced problems largely resulting from inexperience with online learning environments and difficulties related specifically to their respective disability. However, problems with absent or incomplete instructions coupled with assumptions of technological familiarity exacerbated these difficulties. These latter problems can and should be addressed by courseware manufacturers (who should make adequate and complete instructions available on demand) and by course developers and instructors, 104 Luke & Harrison who should create an inclusive environment for learning. This environment should make provisions for people who need these instructions as well as the redundant display of key information. Mobility Impaired The study participant who was mobility impaired (quadriplegic) experienced no difficulties in accessing each courseware function, largely a result of this participant’s familiarity with adaptive technology and online instructional environments. The only problems experienced by this participant were specific courseware functions that were not operational. STUDY LIMITATIONS While the findings of the study are clear, it is pertinent to note limitations. One of these was the small number of participants used. Also, the results may be influenced by order effects due to limitations in the subject pool. The study used the most up-to-date technology, which resulted in using online learning environments not designed for accessibility. However, this underscores the importance of considering accessibility guidelines in the developmental stage of a technology. Technology interactions presented a problem in that in some instances, there were adverse interactions between the assistive and adaptive technologies used and the operating system and courseware being tested. Some technical shortcomings can be overcome, although this can be costly, time consuming and frustrating for all concerned. Given these considerations, it is important that sound, inclusive pedagogical practices direct the development of technology, rather than react to its successive innovations. Built-in accessibility in the tools that facilitate online learning should be a priority. THE ROLE OF THE COURSEWARE AUTHORING TOOL DEVELOPER Considerable work in the area of accessibility has already been completed by WAI in the form of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 9 from WAI of W3C. The premise of the WAI document is that “the authoring tool be accessible to authors regardless of disability; it produce accessible content by default; and it support and encourage the author in creating accessible content” [World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 2000]. The associated guidelines and checkpoints in the WAI document provide a useful framework for consideration of the current Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 105 challenges and the opportunities at hand for courseware authoring tool developers. The premise of the Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom study parallels that of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines document: To achieve these goals, authoring tool developers must take steps such as ensuring conformance to accessible standards (e.g., HTML 4), checking and correcting accessibility problems, prompting, and providing appropriate documentation and help (SNOW Project, 2000). It should be noted that the authoring tools referred to in the WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines include HTML editors, conversion tools and multimedia production software, in addition to site management and publication tools. However, specific aspects of the document can be applied to the development of courseware authoring tools in particular. REVIEW OF AUTHORING TOOL GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE The following summary uses the WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as a framework for analysis of barriers to accessibility and opportunities for improvement. Each guideline is followed by the associated checkpoints and commentary on its applicability within the context of the courseware environment. Guideline 1. Support Accessible Authoring Practices 1.1 Ensure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1] 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all accessibility information during authoring, transformations, and conversions. [Priority 1] Compliance with checkpoints 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 related to two types of HTML authoring. In some cases, the products reviewed allow online editing of HTML through a text field in the client browser, allowing the author complete control of the HTML markup. Each of these products also allows the course designer to upload documents authored outside of the courseware tool without alteration of the HTML markup or compromise of the accessibility information inherent in the pages. Hence, in each of these processes, the author determines how the HTML code will be written or edited. 106 Luke & Harrison 1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority] 1.4 Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority] Checkpoints 1.3 and 1.4 are indeed one of the main areas where developers of courseware authoring tools need to focus their efforts. In most cases, material generated through automatic functions or templates cannot be easily edited by the designer, if at all. The designer is dependent on the courseware tool’s automated programming to provide an accessible format. Potentially, this may act as a barrier to accessible design. However, with some further effort, it could as easily become an important support in the creation of accessible resources, with no need for specialized knowledge or training on the part of the designer. Examples of Problematic HTML Generated by Courseware The following are some specific examples of problematic HTML automatically generated by the courseware studied in the Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom project: • A serious barrier was discovered in the “Workspace” image map in Virtual U, which does not have ALT text associated with any of the image map hotspots (links). Text equivalents for an image map in the courseware interface should be automatically generated by the courseware. Typically, there is no methodology for the course designer to manually add this information.10 • It was noted in CourseInfo that the product opens a new browser window to present the “Student Help” page without informing the user. This was found to be problematic for a screen reader user and a student with a learning disability.11 • With at least three of the products tested, participants in the study found it difficult to use the Assignment Drop-box. This was particularly true for users who are blind or have low vision but was identified as a potential barrier to a student with a learning disability due to the complexity of the interface. In the case of Top Class and WebCT, users with disabilities found the order of the steps in the process to be illogical and the terminology to be unclear and ambiguous. While this is not a specific technical issue, clearly, the usability for all students may be affected.12 • In addition, screen readers are not currently able to correctly read “browse” buttons for uploading files through the browser interface. Until such time as user agents can perform this function, alternatives, such as having students email assignments, should be provided.13 • Further problems were noted in the “Electric Blackboard” in CourseInfo, as Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 107 the new window launched by this utility was smaller than the interface, hiding the form buttons used to enter data or exit the window. In addition, the focus does not move into the text editing area.14 • The automated layout of the quiz function was found to be the cause of potential difficulties in two of the products tested, WebCT and Top Class. In the case of WebCT, the screen reader did not read the entire page, and the participant was required to tab through the links, using the mouse cursor to read the questions. Radio buttons were read as “1” and “2,” rather than as “True” and “False.” As a result, the subject did not know which button was associated with which choice. In the case of Top Class, the radio buttons proved to be a barrier for a learner with low vision, who had difficulty seeing the interface to confirm which was selected.15 • Additional concerns were related to the complexity of multiframe rendering of materials and navigation tools within the courseware environment. While frames are potentially very usable (provided a TITLE is provided), frequently, “fallback” methods are not provided. For example, WebCT offers only the text: “Your browser does not support frames” as NOFRAME content. A “noframes” site map might provide an alternative that would benefit all users.16 • Tools for synchronous communication or collaboration and note-taking on the-fly are also a potential barrier to access for students who are blind or low vision or those who are limited to keyboard access. This is particularly true if the utility is rendered using Java technologies. For example, “chat rooms” in CourseInfo and WebCT were both inaccessible using the keyboard rather than a mouse. If no warning is given that a new window has opened, in combination with an “Exit” button that is generated through Java, a user may become disoriented or frustrated. In both of these products, the chat functions were found to be poorly labeled and nonintuitive, increasing the cognitive load for all users.17 At present, there are few examples of accessible, text-based chat utilities. A model may be found within the “Learning to Learn” course on the SNOW (Special Needs Opportunity Windows) site, hosted by the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto. Another is available at Naken Chat, providing a telnet-based equivalent to a Java chat client.18 Another promising avenue is the Java Accessibility API provided by Sun Microsystems. This API allows users to create Java applications that can “interact with assistive technologies such as screen readers, speech recognition systems and refreshable braille displays.”19 Sun’s Web site states that the Accessibility API provides “boiler plate” interfaces for UI components that allow third-party software, such as a screen reader to “obtain information that is common to all 108 Luke & Harrison ‘accessible’ components (such as AccessibleName and AccessibleDescription), as well as information that is more component specific (such as AccessibleValue and AccessibleSelection).”20 White boards present a unique problem for students who are blind or have low vision, as they are essentially a “visual” tool. As in any educational setting, accommodations need to be made for students with special needs. In this instance, course designers should be advised that use of this tool should not be required for participation in a course, and other accessible communication tools may be suggested as an alternative.21 Nevertheless, improvements could be made in terms of warning users that a new window is about to open and providing an “Exit” button in HTML rather than Java. Keyboard access should also be provided for users who are sighted but may have a mobility impairment. Courseware authoring tool developers are in a unique position to control the automated programming and ensure that utilities and program-generated content is provided in an accessible format. While many of the products have shown improvement over the last two years, there are many further accessibility features that could be integrated into the student interface. Guideline 2. Generate Standard Markup 2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2] Some of the W3C standards recommended in the context of Checkpoint 2.1 may be seen by courseware authoring tool developers as unfeasible, because they are not yet well supported by mainstream browsers. Standards mentioned in this section of the Authoring Tool Guidelines include MathML, XHTML, CSS and SVG. Even if mainstream browsers are unable to render new standards, these facilitate and support accessibility by nonstandard browsers and alternative output formats. By ensuring that the authoring tool recognizes and preserves elements that are defined in the relevant specification(s), usability may be enhanced for all users, as legacy documents are used in contexts that support newer standards. 2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup. [Priority 1] 2.3 If markup produced by the tool does not conform to W3C specifications, inform the author. [Priority 3] Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 109 Checkpoint 2.2 is another crucial signpost for courseware authoring tool developers. While deprecated elements and nonstandard markup may produce graphical rendering in a satisfactory manner for visual rendering on mainstream browsers, accessibility issues may arise if content is transformed to an alternative modality based on the user’s preferences. Common practices include use of tables for layout, a header to change the font size or BLOCKQUOTE to indent a paragraph. Using markup improperly may create a barrier, preventing users with specialized software or preferences from understanding the organization of a page and navigating through it effectively. For example, the learner may choose to adapt the material using a user-defined Cascading Style Sheet or convert the text to an audio output format. While the original visual appearance of the Web page may reflect the hierarchical structure and relationship of various components on the page, this meaning may be lost in alternative formats if elements are formatted using nonstandard markup or deprecated elements. For this reason, it is important that content generated by courseware programs conforms to current HTML standards, or if it does not for any reason, that the user be informed of this fact. In this study, the output generated by the products tested was not reviewed or analyzed with specific attention to use of standard markup. However, by ensuring that valid HTML is used throughout the documents created by their product, courseware developers can contribute to the accessibility for learners with disabilities and usability for everyone. Guideline 3. Support the Creation of Accessible Content 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority] In addition to supporting authors in creation of materials using standard markup, Checkpoint 3.1 recommends support through tools and prompts that further enhance accessibility for students with disabilities. Consider the case of the home page creation tool found in WebCT, which allows designers to enter a banner image for the page. While a title may be added under the image, there is no opportunity to add ALT text for the banner, which in all likelihood, will contain important information as a graphic that includes text. A prompt for ALT text could easily be added to the interface. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that WebCT has taken steps in their most recent release to prompt the author for a text title for navigational icons. This text is used both as ALT text and as a redundant text link for graphical icons. 110 Luke & Harrison This type of prompt guides the author to make a more accessible navigation system, with no extra effort or knowledge of workarounds. 3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority] Checkpoint 3.2 suggests that courseware developers use new standards, such as Cascading Style Sheets, XHTML and XML to separate information from its presentation. While these technologies are relatively recent, it is anticipated that they will become more and more common as we are faced with management of large Web sites and dynamic, database-driven resources. As courseware products keep a database of records of the content to be displayed on the client browser and records for students participating in courses, it is anticipated that these new approaches to authoring will be incorporated in coming releases. 3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority] At the time that the “Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom” study was undertaken, none of the products tested offered “prepackaged” content. However, recent developments in the publishing industry may increase the significance of this guideline for courseware developers, as they are called upon to partner with companies that have traditionally provided educational resources in print formats. Recognizing the need to move digitized educational materials to meet the demands of today’s learner, publishing companies such as McGraw-Hill Ryerson have taken steps to offer textbooks as content within a courseware environment. If the courseware utilities, as well as digitized text, images and any multimedia components are in accessible formats, students with disabilities will make considerable gains in access to education. 3.4 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1] For example, prompt the author for a text equivalent of an image. If the author has already provided a text equivalent for the same image used in another document, offer to reuse that text and prompt the author for confirmation. If the tool automatically generates a “Search” icon, it would be appropriate to automatically reuse the previously authored text equivalent for that icon. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 111 3.5 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3] Issues related to Checkpoints 3.4 and 3.5 may be very simple, or quite complex, depending on the nature of the graphical or multimedia components included in the course. The products tested in the “Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom” study allow the designer to upload files to be used as course content. Examples where alternative equivalent would be required may range from simple ALT text for an image file to captioning or text transcripts for a video or audio file. As mentioned above, WebCT has demonstrated a model for adding ALT text to simple image icons. However, in the case where a complex media element such as an audio or video file is added to the content area, none of the products reviewed provided a utility or prompt for alternative equivalents to be included. For example, a prompt for entry of a text version of audio components could be included if upload of an audio file type is detected. This is another opportunity to support authors in providing text equivalents. Guideline 4. Provide Ways of Checking and Correcting Inaccessible Content 4.1 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] 4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2] 4.4 Provide the author with a summary of the document’s accessibility status. [Priority 3] 4.5 Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup used for style into style sheets. [Priority 3] The checkpoints found in the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines related to automation and provision of a validation and repair process are as yet unresolved by courseware products currently on the market. As mentioned previously, Web-editing software such as HoTMetaL Pro, and recently 112 Luke & Harrison Macromedia’s Dreamweaver, have moved forward by including an accessibility validator and support within the authoring tool. Online tools such as Bobby,22 or stand-alone utilities such as SSB Technologies Software23 or the A-Prompt Tool Kit24 demonstrate the feasibility of providing such support. Developers of at least one of the products tested have indicated plans to incorporate a validation process into the upload utility for content added to their courseware. This strategy would meet the checkpoints found in Section 4, automating the process and at the same time educating designers regarding accessibility issues. Guideline 5. Integrate Accessibility Solutions into the Overall “Look and Feel” 5.1 Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the tool. [Priority 2] 5.2 Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] Priority 1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author. [Priority 2] At such time as prompts, validation tools and repair tools are integrated into a courseware product, it is hoped that, as recommended by Section 5 of the Guidelines, the interface will be integrated with the overall look and feel of the program. Accessibility should be seen as an essential part of the authoring process, not as an add on to the program or an “extra” external step in the process. HTML authoring utilities such as Macromedia Dreamweaver’s Accessibility Checker extension or HTML Kit’s online validators exemplify the inclusion of such utilities. In the future, courseware products should use models such as these as they move to include tools to support accessible authoring practices. Guideline 6. Promote Accessibility in Help and Documentation 6.1 Document all features that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1] 6.2 Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples. [Priority 2] Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 113 6.3 In a dedicated section, document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 3] Checkpoints 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 indicate that in addition to automation of accessible design, validation and repair processes through integration of prompts and utilities to support the page author, help and documentation must include explanations of accessibility problems and should demonstrate solutions with examples. This will support Web authors who may not be familiar with accessibility issues that arise when creating Web content. Among the products tested, it should be noted that WebCT is the leader in terms of provision of documentation on accessible design in the instructor’s “Help” files. Information on disability issues, adaptive technology, design strategies and a resource list is provided through the online help utility, accessed from the designer’s browser.25 Examples and tips have been included in the documentation, as well as specific references to use of these strategies in the WebCT designer interface. This support for authors is a model that other products need to emulate. Guideline 7. Ensure that the Authoring Tool is Accessible to Authors with Disabilities 7.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions. [Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are essential to accessibility; Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility; Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility] 7.2 Allow the author to change the presentation within editing views without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1] 7.3 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1] 7.4 Ensure that the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1] 7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 2] 7.6 Allow the author to search within editing views. [Priority 2] This final section of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines addresses issues related to the designer user interface, emphasizing the importance of 114 Luke & Harrison providing components and utilities that can be accessed by an author using assistive technology. While it is critical to ensure inclusion of learners with disabilities in development of the student interface, it is equally as important to provide support for the educator, instructor or designer with a disability. While development of “offline” HTML editing software requires consideration of traditional user interface design standards and conventions, provision of the authoring process through a browser instead requires consideration of Web content accessibility standards. A client browser authoring tool offers many of the access advantages inherent in Web-based delivery, including flexibility in presentation and input and output modalities. Using their browser or adaptive software, the author can enlarge the font, navigate the content and utilize authoring utilities, provided the interface has been designed in compliance with WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Given that the “Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom” study focused specifically on the student interface, no comprehensive evaluation of this aspect of courseware product designer interfaces is currently available. Future iterations of our courseware accessibility review will allow us to examine this important issue. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCLUSIVE DESIGN The challenges in evaluating the accessibility of courseware authoring tools are much the same as those faced by those involved in the process of developing those same tools. The formidable task of keeping up with changes in Web technology has been described by accessibility expert Skip Stahl (CAST) and others, as being similar to “trying to change a wheel on a moving car.”26 In addition, improvements to adaptive technology capabilities and the frequent new releases of courseware products add to the complexity of the process. Courseware authoring tool developers face challenges but also have a great opportunity to improve access for all learners. Given that content developers and instructors rely on these tools to create and deliver content, they play an essential role in ensuring the accessibility of the Web. As noted in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, it must be recognized that the Web is “both a means of receiving information and communicating information,” and “it is important that both the Web content produced and the authoring tool itself be accessible.” Separating the media used to access educational material from the content puts the emphasis on the content, which should be flexible enough to fit a variety of presentation media (text, audio, etc.). New markup languages (XML, XSL, CSS, DOM, XUL, Java) “separate content and structure from presentation” and “separate function from input [and output] method” (Treviranus, 2000). This separation allows people who need alternative or redundant output devices to Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 115 access media that otherwise may be inaccessible to them. Future courseware applications should strive to include these modalities. Internet experience (or lack thereof) and experience with assistive technology can vastly affect the success or failure of any online learning experience. Course instructors using any courseware or considering using online learning networks should be aware of accessibility standards and how the environment being used might fail to meet these. Instructors should ensure that information is appropriately displayed (insofar as this relates to the ability of the instructor to manipulate the courseware display of information) and that any learning disabilities that may require special consideration (with respect to information display, redundancy, etc.) are taken into consideration in the design phase of the online course creation. When recommended design strategies are implemented, any Web-based learning program can potentially be made accessible to students with disabilities. Screen readers or braille displays can provide audio access for students who are blind, while alternative pointing devices, onscreen keyboards and voice recognition and other adaptive technologies offer a choice of input and output methods. At present, one of the greatest barriers to access is the lack of authoring tools that support course content developers in adhering to existing accessibility guidelines. Increasingly, courseware authoring environments are being used to make the process more efficient and could easily include utilities to support developers in making their online resources accessible as well. In the United States, legislation is a new force in the arena of online learning, as in many educational contexts, Web-based resources must be compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. Web editing software such as HoTMetaL Pro, and recently Macromedia’s Dreamweaver have moved forward by including an accessibility validator and support within the authoring tool. A proactive developer may further utilize tools such as Bobby, SSB Technologies Software or the A-Prompt Tool Kit to validate the accessibility of individual Web pages. However, all of these strategies for validation and repair may prove fruitless if the Web pages are then uploaded into a courseware environment that generates an interface that creates barriers to access. Complexities in page layouts, inconsistencies in item labeling, a lack of instructions for task completion and the absence of consistent and clear functions related to items within courseware platforms are the major obstacles to accessibility. To ensure full accessibility of information, courseware developers need to ensure their platforms conform to the current WAI guidelines. In addition, redundant information display is needed to aid those who are learning disabled. Additionally, problems with courseware platforms and adaptive or assistive technology need to be acknowledged, addressed and tested in order to lessen the 116 Luke & Harrison deleterious effects of incompatibilities that may arise. At issue here is the role of timely information, adequate support and training for people just learning digital literacy skills, both teacher and student. The concept of digital literacy includes not only the skill to use information technologies (broadly defined as any technology that mediates the use of information), but also the requisite skills to decode, contextualize and critically evaluate this information (Beynon & Mackay, 1992; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Dusick, 1998; Fanning, 2000; Kellner, 2000; Langford, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 1996). An important addition to this aspect of literacy has been the concept of universal design, or accessibility, with respect to physically or learning disabled persons. With 20% of the population—54 million people in the United States alone (Waddell, 1999)— suffering from some sort of physical or learning disability, and with this percentage increasing as the population ages, it is essential to factor in accessibility guidelines from the first iteration of online learning development. ACCESSABILITY: ENABLING LEARNING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY The study data reinforce the notion that, just as buildings are built with accessibility factored into their architecture from the ground up, so too must WWW and Internet architecture factor in accessibility initiatives from the outset to ensure equitable access to online resources. By taking into account technical and pedagogical accessibility considerations, people with physical or learning disabilities are encouraged to become producers of information, and not just passive consumers. By operating an accessible, inclusive electronic classroom, students with disabilities can participate with parity in global educational exchange. The development of the incidental skills that accrue with using technologically mediated learning environments results in “improved self-confidence and self esteem, enhanced social skills and computer proficiency, as well as greater motivation for continued skill development” (Harrison & Vekar, 2000, p. 15). Ensuring accessibility in course designs that utilize online technologies will ensure that the wider population benefits from these programs: “For people without disabilities, technology makes things convenient, whereas for people with disabilities, it makes things possible . . . [this] fact brings with it an enormous responsibility because the reverse is also true. Inaccessible technology can make things absolutely impossible for disabled people, a prospect we must avoid.”27 The very design of accessible online programs offers disabled persons an avenue to pursue educational opportunities where none might have existed before. Inclusive electronic learning environments directly benefit online learning by Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 117 providing access to lifelong learning programs to those at risk of being left out of these programs. In order for these programs to be successful and inclusive, it is “important that post-secondary institutions provide the necessary training, resources, and tools to develop accessible Web materials” (Hricko, 2000, p. 398). This applies equally to those developing online learning structures and those who learn with and through them. Adequate training in digital literacy skills (including online learning technologies and adaptive and assistive technologies) is essential if inclusive electronic classrooms are to become an effective part of educational reality. The cross-hatching of pedagogy- and technology-based considerations reflects the fact that ”Information is so broadly based and the acquisition of knowledge so complex that new ways of teaching and learning are essential if students of such great diversity are to be truly engaged in the learning process” (Connick & Russo, 1995, p. 16). This learning diversity is reflected in the multimodal display of information that makes it more accessible. By making information more accessible for all, everyone benefits (Rose & Meyer, 2000, p. 4). Making information available outside the physical constraints of the traditional classroom and opening this classroom to a fluid negotiation of identity, results in a more open, flexible learning environment that is responsive to multiple users who may be restricted (either temporarily or permanently) by disabilities. “The primary reason for insisting on interactive communication outside the physical classroom itself—at least as a possibility—is because of the capacity of electronic technology to create an open information system and a more open, flexible model of student– teacher interaction” (Plater, 1995, p. 6), provided accessibility is built into the electronic classroom. This pedagogical malleability is reflected in the fact that “what is of most significance to the future of education, especially for students with disabilities, is the unequaled flexibility and transformability of digital media” (Rose & Meyer, 2000, p. 3). Digital media “remain malleable, transformable from one thing to another, more like raw clay than fired pottery” (Rose & Meyer, 2000, p. 3). Developing digital literacies means engaging with the larger technologically mediated world and taking responsibility for learning from this vast and inchoate matrix of information that comprises the WWW (Kellner, 2000; Luke, 2000). Recontextualizing and reconceptualizing teaching and learning within networked paradigms creates new “digitial” pedagogies that acknowledge the realities of living and working in a digitally networked world (Privateer, 1999). These “‘digital pedagogies,’ [are] new ways of educating more consistent with the nature of contemporary technologies than with prior management models” (Privateer, 1999, p. 61), and will result in a shifting of the goals of education from “the mastery of content (content will be available everywhere, anytime, electronically) [to] the mastery of learning. At commencement, we will graduate students who are ‘expert learners’” (Rose & Meyer, 2000, p. 6). In order to be effective and accessible, 118 Luke & Harrison these new digital pedagogies must also acknowledge other barriers to pursuing education, including “cultural, social, familial, personal, or financial barriers” (Fusch, 2000). Taking into account the larger social fabric in which education participates means recognizing that ”it is environmental factors and accessibility features of computer and information technologies that form either facilitators or barriers to students with disabilities” (Fichten, Berile, & Asuncion 1999, p. 179). These environmental factors include the extent to which users of online learning networks have significant training or experience in the use of all technologies of information access, and the extent to which these networks offer inclusive, accessible educational space. By building in “electronic curbcuts” from the ground up, online education programs ensure they meet the inclusive principles of universal design. The shift toward a digital pedagogy will open the educational process to all, provided there is an emphasis on accessibility. New, lifelong learning conceptions of education and learning styles, which include multiple modalities (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000a), enabled through digital technology and pedagogy will result in a more positive and inclusive social structure. Through the reconceptualization of education as process enabled through accessible media and by digital pedagogies, all types of learners can participate equally and are acknowledged as equal partners in education. Technology is enabling to those with disabilities (via accessible technology). It also enables different conceptions of teaching and learning: it mobilizes or is mobilized to construct digital pedagogies. Information and communication technologies can allow access to educational opportunities for a wider audience, especially with asynchronous online delivery of curricular materials (see Rose & Meyer, 2000). Rather than simply using online media to deliver course materials and perhaps to facilitate communication between students and instructors, these media have the potential to radically alter the pedagogy that underlies distance education. “Accessibility is the challenge that will finally push the Web to become the ubiquitous tool for interactive knowledge sharing it was meant to be. Creating an environment which is welcoming to billions of users with widely varying motivations, capabilities and needs is not a fringe goal but the critical goal” (Treviranus, 2000). Using online learning technology leads to an enhanced understanding of the ground of these media; that is, a recognition of how these media operate with and in the larger context of a learning culture. Technical considerations notwithstanding, the most important element of ensuring and designing accessible media is a sound pedagogy driving the technology. AccessAbility means providing an inclusive, accessible environment for learning that might otherwise be closed to people with physical or learning disabilities. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 119 ENDNOTES 1 Parts of this research are published in Luke, R. “AccessAbility: Enabling technology for lifelong learning,” in “Integrating Technology into Learning and Working.” Special Issue of Educational Technology and Society, 5(1) January 2002. 2 The study is a joint initiative of the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Academic Technology (CAT) at the University of Toronto, the Special Needs Opportunity Windows Project (SNOW) at the University of Toronto, the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO), the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) and Dr. Bruce Landon. The study was led by Greg Gay, Web Projects Manager, at the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto. 3 WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 from Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (http:// www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/). 4 Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom (http://www.snow.utoronto.ca/initiatives/inclusion.html). 5 See “Accessibility: Overview” (http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-upe/1/1_e.asp). 6 Section 508, see (http://www.section508.gov/index.html). 7 See, for example, the Centre for Applied Special Technology (http:// www.cast.org). 8 See (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/srnet/evnet.htm). 9 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 from WAI of W3C (http:// www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/) 10 WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every nontext element (e.g., via “alt,” “longdesc,” or in element content). This includes images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video and video. [Priority 1] (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-provide-equivalents). 11 WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. [Priority 2] (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAIWEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility). 12 WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site’s content. [Priority 1] (http:/ 120 Luke & Harrison 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 /www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-facilitate-comprehension). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality) and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]( http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ #gl-use-w3c). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. [Priority 3] For example, in HTML, do this for TEXTAREA and INPUT. (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAIWEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 10.2 Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned. [Priority 2] ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ #gl-interim-accessibility). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page. [Priority 2] For example, in HTML, use NOFRAMES at the end of each frameset ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-newtechnologies). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.] (http://www.w3.org/TR/ WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-own-interface) Checkpoint 9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface). can be operated in a device-independent manner. [Priority 2] ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gldevice-independence). Learning to Learn chat utility (http://snow.utoronto.ca/cgi/Chat/chat.cgi) and Naken Chat (http://nakenchat.naken.cc) Java Accessibility—Sun Microsystems Inc. (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/ docs/guide/access/). Java Accessibility—Sun Microsystems Inc. (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/ docs/guide/access/). WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.] (http://www.w3.org/TR/ Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 22 23 24 25 26 27 121 WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-own-interface). Checkpoint 9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner. [Priority 2] (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gldevice-independence). Bobby online validation from CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) (http://www.cast.org/bobby/). SSB Technologies (http://www.ssbtechnologies.com/). A-Prompt Tool Kit from the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto (http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca). WebCT Help Files for Version 2.x and 3.x can be downloaded as PDF files at (http://about.webct.com/v2/help/). Skip Stahl (2000), quote from discussion at AHEAD conference as copresenters of seminar on Accessible Curriculum Design. Judith Heumann, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education. Keynote address to Microsoft employees and experts on disabilities and technology, Redmond, Washington, February 19, 1998. Qtd. In (Treviranus ). REFERENCES Beynon, J. & Mackay, H. (Eds.). (1992). Technological Literacy and the Curriculum. London and New York: Falmer Press. Connick, G. & Russo, J. (1995). Technology and the inevitability of educational transformation, in Boschmann, E. (Ed.), The Electronic Classroom: A Handbook for Education in the Electronic Environment, 14–20. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000a). Designs for social futures, in Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, 203–234. London; New York: Routledge. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000b). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London; New York: Routledge. Dusick, D. (1998). The learning effectiveness of educational technology: What does that really mean? Educational Technology Review, Autumn/ Winter, 10–12. Fanning, J. (2000). Expanding the definition of technological literacy in schools. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mcrel.org/products/ noteworthy/noteworthy/jimf.asp. Fichten, C., Berile, M., & Asuncion, J. (1999). Learning Technologies: Students 122 Luke & Harrison with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://olt-bta.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/download/ 79160final_e.pdf. Fusch, G. (2000). Breaking down perceived barriers to lifelong learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(1). Retrieved December 1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2000/fusch.html. Harrison, J. & Vekar, J. (2000). New Learning Technologies: Applications, Challenges, and Success Stories from the Front Lines. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.telelearn.ca. Harrison, L. (2000). Accessible Web-Based Distance Education: Principles and Best Practices. Retrieved December 1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/rd/library/papers/accDistance Education.html. Hricko, M. (2000). Designing accessible Web-based courses. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 9(3), 393–402. Kellner, D. (2000). Multiple literacies and critical pedagogies: New paradigms. In Trifonas, P. P. (Ed.), Revolutionary Pedagogies: Cultural Politics, Instituting Education, and the Discourse of Theory, 196–202. New York and London: Routledge. Langford, L. (1998). Information literacy: A clarification. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, October. Retrieved October 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://emifyes.iserver.net/fromnow/oct98/ clarify.html. Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteracies for new times, in Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, 69–91. London and New York: Routledge. Plater, W. M. (1995). In search of the electronic classroom. In Boschmann, E. (Ed.), The Electronic Classroom: A Handbook for Education in the Electronic Environment, 3–13. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc. Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (1996). Expanding the Literacy Toolbox. In Literacy Research Paper 11. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cast.org/udl/scholastic_literacy_11.pdf. Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2000). The Future is in the Margins: The Role of Technology and Disability in Educational Reform. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.air.org/forum/pdf/rose.pdf. SNOW Project. (2000). SNOW Initiatives: Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom—2000. Retrieved December 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://snow.utoronto.ca/initiatives/access_study/inclusion.html. Inclusion in an Electronic Classroom 123 Treviranus, J. (2000). Expanding the digital media in more human directions. Presented at the Towards the Digital Media Institute, March 11. University of Toronto: Knowledge Media Design Institute Lecture Series. Waddell, C. (1999). The Growing Digital Divide in Access for People with Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation in the Digital Economy. Retrieved October 20, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2000). Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved December 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/. 124 Lynch & DeWitz Chapter VII Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually-Impaired Faculty Maggie Lynch and Patti DeWitz Portland State University, USA ABSTRACT Currently, 24% of the population has experienced significant vision loss. Though there has been some progress on developing accessible Web pages, there has been little work on providing Web page development accessibility to visually-impaired faculty. This chapter presents a study designed to assist educational organizations with blind or visually-impaired (BVI) faculty in the development of online courses and in the teaching of those same courses. The study used the tools of interview, usability analysis, and experimentation. Issues discussed include software accessibility, college or university support requirements, motivational factors, instructor skill levels, and strategies for working with BVI faculty. The findings and recommendations are specific to the WebCT environment, but some of the strategies may be generalized to other similar environments. The article ends with a discussion of major technology initiatives currently underway. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 125 INTRODUCTION Currently 24%, of the population has experienced significant vision loss. Whereas only 1% are blind from birth, the other 23% experience significant vision loss including legal blindness at a later date. The major causes of vision loss in middle age are diabetes and macular degeneration. The University of Washington (2000) presents persuasive statistics to consider in making the decision about working with blind or visually-impaired persons. “Worldwide, 42 million people are blind.” According to University of Washington Department of Ophthalmology, in the United States the numbers of low-vision and potential blindness cases in the near future are rising rapidly: • 100 million Americans are visually disabled without corrective lenses • 80 million people suffer from potentially blinding eye disease • 11,400,000 people have severe visual conditions not correctable by glasses • 1,100,000 people are legally blind • 6,300,000 people are projected to develop age-related macular degeneration in 2030, compared to 1.7 million in 1995 • 16 million diabetics are prime targets for blinding disorders The Accessible Society E-Letter reported on a new study in late 2001 that still finds that the Web is “pretty un-usable for anyone who cannot see a conventional computer screen and use a mouse with dexterity.” Jakob Nielsen (2001) recently released a study that indicated Web usability is “three to six times better for nondisabled people than for people with low vision, no vision or motor impairment.” In those tasks relating to the low-vision population, the study found that the control group’s error rate was only .06; screen reader users’ error rate was 2.0; and screen magnifier users’ error rate was 4.5. These are issues not only for blind or low-vision individuals but also for a large percentage of our population. Reviewing the Research Numerous articles, opinion pieces and technical guidelines have been written to assist Web designers with developing accessible Web pages. There has been some progress with these efforts, yet the software used for building Web pages and, even more, the online course authoring and development software still fails to be accessible to blind or visually-impaired (BVI) faculty. Because of ADA guidelines, most colleges and universities have begun to examine their guidelines for accommodating student needs. Other institutions have provided some training and begun to ask questions such as: • What would it be like for a student to visit your course Web site and not be able to see the graphics, hear the sound clips or use a keyboard or mouse? • Would she or he miss important information? Would he or she even realize it? However, few if any colleges or universities have attempted to actively 126 Lynch & DeWitz evaluate the BVI instructor needs in the Web-based teaching environment. As education moves toward the online environment, those who can develop courses and teach online are highly sought as potential hires. Where then does this leave the visually challenged instructor? How difficult is it for this instructor to compete in teaching and development in the online environment? What types of accommodation are needed to insure visually challenged employees have the same opportunities for teaching online as they do in the traditional classroom? One of the greatest assets of the World Wide Web for developers of distance learning environments is the capacity to incorporate graphics, animation and generally stimulating visual environments. In fact, most distance delivery technologies are suited quite nicely to sighted learners and instructors. Now, imagine for a moment that you are a BVI instructor who is scheduled for an online course. Do you have access to the same learning environment as the sighted instructors? In almost all instances, the answer is, “No.” Are you able to navigate without just guessing where you are going? Can you access all links knowing where they will take you? Can you “see” the content and navigation of which the sighted take easy advantage? For many institutions, the accommodation for blind students has been to provide a separate text-only site. But doesn’t this text-only version of a Web-based course constitute the classic “separate but equal” version of discrimination? And what about the BVI instructor? Is that instructor expected to create and implement a text-only online course for his or her students? How will that support the learning of all the sighted students? The BVI population represents only about 20 percent of the general population in the United States. People who are blind or visually impaired use specialized adaptive technologies (e.g., Braille keyboards, screen-reader software, magnification tools) to access computer-based tools for productivity and communication. Their rights in a traditional face-to-face classroom are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which guarantees that reasonable accommodations be are provided to allow the least restrictive access to all materials, activities and instruction. In recent years, organizations that serve the BVI (e.g., American Foundation for the Blind, National Federation of the Blind) have begun to question the accommodation that is most commonly found in online environments: a link to a text-only version of the course. Evaluation and Usability Study Setup The purpose of this study was to provide educational organizations with information that will help them to work with BVI faculty in the development of online courses and in the teaching of those same courses. In this study, the authors undertook the project research in two forms: and experimentation. Interviews. The authors attempted to find BVI faculty across the nation who Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 127 were engaged in teaching online or developing online courses. This proved to be very difficult. Out of the nine interviews conducted, only three individuals were visually impaired instructors, with only one person also doing development. The remaining interview participants were faculty developers who worked with BVI instructors. The interview questions were designed to evaluate the ease or difficulty for BVI instructors to participate fully as developers and teachers in the online environment. Experimentation. One of the authors of this chapter is visually impaired and had been teaching online courses for two years prior to this study. She uses JAWS (a screen reader) as her enabling technology to access Web pages and a variety of software. She successfully competed for an institutional grant to develop a new online course and, subsequently, attended course development training with 11 other selected faculty. Being one who values her independence, she was determined to learn how to use the institution’s course management system (WebCT) and other software to develop her own online courses. Furthermore, she was well aware that obtaining these skills would increase her marketability for a tenured faculty position in academia. The author logged her experience of this learning process, while at the same time doing research in the field of accessibility and accommodation to assist others who may wish to follow in her footsteps. The measure of any piece of courseware’s usability is the extent to which all those who choose or are required to use it can do so effectively and with as little difficulty as possible. In the same way that building an office with the needs of users in mind usually looks better than adding an extension as an afterthought, so the consideration of users’ requirements at the courseware design stage can often save complex and cumbersome reprogramming later. It is important that courseware, which may form a vital component of a course, is properly tested for its usability. For the BVI user, this will include its accessibility, both in general terms and in terms of full compatibility with enabling technologies such as screen readers. Accessibility using WebCT for the BVI instructor is a functional rather than an educational issue. Thus, the author’s testing attempted to identify use of task-related activities in order to maximize access. For example, the usability trials attempted to perform all functions required in a fully realized online course: • Building Web pages and providing them as content within the WebCT environment • Composing and accessing private e-mail • Composing messages for and accessing the discussion board • Participating in the chat room • Using the whiteboard • Using the grade book As Laurillard (1993) indicates, courseware should also be formatively evalu- 128 Lynch & DeWitz ated, and that is the approach the authors took in this experimentation. The amount of data collected is intensive rather than extensive. Formative evaluation is not concerned with demonstrating improved performance, but with improving performance. All of the above activities required a significant amount of navigation and manipulation, usually involving numerous keystrokes and cursor movements. Some activities were very successful, others were abysmal failures. An evaluation of each portion of WebCT, as well as recommendations for accommodation, are made later in this chapter. Issues Two primary facets of online instruction create issues for BVI instructors: software accessibility and college or university support. It is important that both facets be addressed simultaneously in order to provide true accommodation. Software Accessibility. Most of the problems a BVI instructor will encounter involve using a screen reader with Web-based pages and tools. These problems are magnified when attempting to work with course management or Web design software. Screen reading software such as JAWS and Window-eyes allow the user to hear the contents of the screen. These programs work reasonably well with common word processing, spreadsheet and database programs. However, problems arise when the instructor attempts to use the screen reader with course management software such as WebCT or Blackboard and with Web page design software such as Dreamweaver, Front Page or Netscape Composer. The instructor faces the same problems when accessing most pages on the Internet. Below, several specific problem sources are described. 1. Icons and radio buttons are not labeled with text; thus, the screen reader cannot read them. The screen reader user accesses the screen with key commands rather than the mouse. Any item that is presented as a graphic— pictures, clickable buttons, banners—must have the “alt.text” tag incorporated into the HTML code in order for a screen reader to access that item. Where a sighted user can easily see the navigational button, a screen reader can only read the HTML behind that button. If there is no text associated with the button, then all possibility for navigation is lost to the BVI instructor. 2. Course management programs such as WebCT are Java based. JAWS, the most common screen reader, does not work well with Java. Therefore, some of the WebCT functionality is not available to the BVI instructor. For example, the “chat room” is completely inaccessible. 3. The use of sophisticated authoring programs, such as that found in WebCT’s designer tools, requires the instructor to be a very knowledgeable screen reader user in order to begin to attempt designing courses using a course manager. A survey of BVI individuals in the author’s local area revealed that Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 129 the majority of JAWS users are not knowledgeable about the use of the screen reader on the Web. The author, using JAWS for this study, invested a minimum of 20 additional hours in JAWS specialized training in order to participate in using WebCT as an instructor. It is estimated that an additional 20–40 hours would be required to begin any online course development efforts using the WebCT designer tools. College or University Support Requirements. One of the dilemmas confronting higher education technical support staff is “How much should we accommodate the blind or visually impaired instructor?” Accommodation refers to services or equipment that allow the instructor to “do his or her job,” given the instructor already has the necessary computer skills and content knowledge. For example, to assist Patty DeWitz in work as a traditional and online instructor, the following accommodations were made: 1. Portland State University obtained a site license for JAWS, the screen reader program. Patti and other blind instructors and students can now use any campus-based computer and access a screen reader. This is particularly important for using the computers in the high-tech classrooms and the computer labs. 2. To allow Patti to use a computer during training and meetings, she was given a laptop with JAWS installed. This also facilitated her discussions with instructional designers and with students in situations where she was reviewing material not available to that individual’s computer. Experimentation The BVI author, Patti DeWitz, experienced two very different approaches to accommodation in her initial forays into the world of online instruction and course development. Each approach related to the university’s philosophy of providing design assistance for all instructors. The cases are described below. At Marylhurst University, where the author has been an adjunct online instructor, the design and Web-based implementation assistance was performed by instructional support staff for all online faculty. The instructional support staff was very willing to design the course and perform all the technical aspects of implementing it online. In this situation, the author only had to learn to use the Web-based communication tools and pages in order to teach her online courses. However, Marylhurst University is unlike the majority of colleges and universities around the nation that instead train their instructors to design and teach online, hybrid or online augmented courses. The majority of universities have neither the personnel nor budget to provide such complete technical and pedagogical support for all online course development. At Portland State University, the approach to online course implementation is 130 Lynch & DeWitz much different than that at Marylhurst. The instructional support staff are tasked with training instructors to build their own online courses using WebCT’s designer tools. It was in this context that Ms. DeWitz began her exploration of becoming the first BVI faculty to develop her own online courses. The issue of accommodation arose as soon as Ms. DeWitz began online course training at PSU. The instructional support staff members were very willing to spend extra time helping her try to use JAWS with WebCT. There were many conversations with WebCT and the Oregon Commission of the Blind to coordinate this effort. From these struggles arose several insights about how much a BVI instructor can reasonably expect to be accommodated. When Ms. DeWitz began training to teach online, she and the instructional support staff were unaware of the problems she would encounter. She participated in a two-day workshop without being able to see the images that were projected during the training. Many presentations were done using PowerPoint slides and screen examples. As Portland State University was not able to install JAWS in time for Ms. DeWitz to use during the training, she attempted to get the gist of the pedagogy and technical navigation of the tools by listening and not seeing. In her initial attempt to teach a hybrid course, the instructional support staff had previously provided rudimentary course design support, e.g., uploading the syllabus, labeling discussion topics and filling the course calendar. However, like sighted instructors, the university then expected Ms. DeWitz to learn to design the rest of the course herself. More importantly, she wanted to do it herself. First-Person Narrative of Case Study Experiences Like most of my colleagues, when I decided to teach online, I did not have any idea about what I was getting into. Filled with ignorance and excitement, I began my first training at Marylhurst University in the Fall of 2000. I did not have access to a screen reader, so I could not use the computer in the training or see the illustrations on the screen in front of the class. But I was not discouraged yet. I have had years of experience using my ears to learn. However, my traditional ways of learning were not enough to develop the skills I needed to use WebBot at Marylhurst. I was not born blind but have always had problems with my vision that required corrective glasses. Until about five years ago, I could still read print. When my vision decreased, I went to the Oregon Commission of the Blind to obtain training in mobility and the use of a screen reader—JAWS. Before entering the Commission, I had attempted to compensate for my vision loss on my own. The first tactic I used was denial. I used my computer less and less. Even with a large screen and magnification software, it was difficult to use the computer. When I started learning JAWS, I already had experience using Microsoft Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 131 Word, and I knew the screen layout. However, I had very little experience working with Web pages. I learned enough about JAWS to use it for routine tasks required in my teaching. However, I did not know JAWS well enough to navigate the Web effectively or to use WebCT efficiently. I taught my first hybrid-marketing course in the fall of 2000. The instructional support staff at Marylhurst did all the design work on my course, including posting the Web pages. My online work consisted of posting and reading messages via the bulletin board and private e-mail. I used trial and error to learn how to use these functions. I was slow. I had trouble with some of the most “simple” tasks in these operations. I had trouble identifying the subject of the message. I would type the subject, but it would not show up in the field. I spent a great deal of time scrolling around the pages. On each page, I would scroll through the entire navigation bar, through all the links, to get to the messages. Because using WebCT was such an arduous task, I became apprehensive every time I went to my course. I did not use the discussion board to its fullest. I did just enough to get by, which was a disservice to my students and to me. But I did not give up. In the summer of 2001, I began WebCT training at Portland State University. Again, I did not have access to a screen reader during the two-day face-to-face training. The remainder of the training was through an online course, where I could use my screen reader. This training consisted of instruction in the features of WebCT, as well as instruction on the pedagogical principles of teaching online. The final project was to actually design an online (or hybrid online) course in WebCT. The trouble began when I tried to learn how to use some simple design features in WebCT, e.g., labeling discussion topics. The instructional support staff at PSU tried to help me with individual instruction. We would meet, try to do a task and have to abandon it. Discouragement and frustration extinguished the initial excitement I had for teaching online. Eventually, I stopped trying. However, my hope rose when I began working again with the adaptive technology specialist at the Oregon Commission of the Blind. The specialist learned WebCT so that he could teach me the overall strategies I needed to work with Web pages as efficiently as possible. He told me I could learn to design courses with WebCT if I was willing to spend the time to learn JAWS very well, followed by practice, practice, practice. He also set my expectations for becoming an online course designer. He said it would take me longer to design my course than my sighted peers—probably, at least three times longer. I had to be willing to spend the time. Though a little short on patience, my pride, commitment and sense of humor pulled me through most of the work. I can now design online courses. I use the discussion tool much more effectively, and I have developed a multitude of 132 Lynch & DeWitz resources to assist me in getting many objects online. I have determined that some parts of the design process are simply not worth my time and effort to build myself. For these portions (e.g., building Web pages with pictures), I rely on support personnel to assist me. However, I still have full control over the content of the course. Though I have low vision, I want to be sure to design my courses with my sighted students in mind. I have regained my excitement, while working with instructional technology specialists to include graphics and videos, as well as text. My teaching style continues to rely on my strength—communication—which I actively pursue with my students through the discussion board. Interview Results To identify the issues surrounding BVI instructors teaching and designing online courses, individuals in the areas of online instruction and adaptive technology were interviewed. To find knowledgeable individuals, requests for interviewees were posted on a variety of education-related list-serves. Respondents were also asked to recommend other individuals. Experts familiar to the authors were also interviewed. It was difficult to find BVI online instructors. Some of the people responding to our requests on list serves asked for our assistance. Early in the interviewing phase of the research, it became evident how little information now exists about BVI online instructors. The range of possible accommodations for BVI instructors varied among the individuals interviewed. At one university, a blind instructor was “completely accommodated.” The instructional support staff designed the online course, read the computer screen for the instructor during the course and typed the discussion board responses to students as dictated by the instructor. At another university, the BVI online instructor taught a completely online course but sent the course content to the instructional support staff to upload into the course. The authors’ purpose was to identify which parts of the design and delivery process might be reasonably learned by a BVI instructor. The interviews were qualitative. A majority of the interviews were conducted by phone. Three were conducted by e-mail, and two were face-to-face interviews. The interviews ranged in length from 30–45 minutes. The results will be discussed in terms of each of the interview questions below. 1. • • • How are you involved in online instruction? Following are the positions of the respondents: Two adaptive technology specialists One instructional designer for an Internet provider One instructional support specialist Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty • • • 133 Two BVI graduate students working online One online program course administrator Three online instructors (one is also the instructional designer) 2. If applicable—What types of adaptive equipment do you use/software do you use? The types of adaptive tools used to access the computer screen ranged from using a refreshable Braille display to using the magnification and color contrast features in Windows 98. The screen reader users and those who teach adaptive software programs use JAWS as their screen reader. However, Window-eyes was mentioned by one respondent as a screen reader that may be easier to use on the Internet. ZoomText was the magnification software used. One person used a combination of magnification software and JAWS. In addition to adaptive computer software, usually the respondent used other ways of accessing print, including Braille, a CCTV (closed circuit TV) that enlarges the print, a scanner and audiotapes. 3. How did you learn to use the equipment/software? The respondents using a screen reader learned to use the software at their local Commission of the Blind. 4. If applicable—What course management software do you use? The course management software used included WebCT, Blackboard and proprietary software developed by the respondent’s college or university. 5. What challenges does the BVI instructor face when teaching online? By far, the major challenge for those who teach online or teach others to use screen readers is the accessibility of the Web pages. One respondent said she could not use the message board on Blackboard and that it is difficult to use Dreamweaver for Web page development. The problems occur when trying to read the Web page or course manager tools. The specific problems and recommendations will be discussed later. 6. What suggestions would you make to a BVI instructor considering teaching online? Two main suggestions were consistently mentioned: 1) Find the best tools to do the job; and 2) know JAWS or another screen reader very well. Inadequate knowledge of a screen reader can be a major drawback for the BVI instructor. For those losing vision later in life, learning to read a screen with your ears could be a challenge. One of the adaptive technology specialists stated that he estimated that only 15–20% of the individuals who use JAWS know it very well, i.e., well enough 134 Lynch & DeWitz to be an effective online instructor/designer. ISSUES IN WORKING WITH BVI INSTRUCTORS Inexperience with Working with Someone Who is Blind or Visually Impaired Blindness and low vision occur less frequently than most other disabilities in the population. According to Chiang (1992), in 1990, about 24% of the population between ages 20 and 64 was legally blind or visually impaired. Projections were for that percentage to increase significantly. Legal blindness is defined as vision less than 6/60 or 20/200 in the better eye, with correction, and a visual field less than 20 degrees. Visual impairment is defined as more than 20/200 to 20/70 noncorrectable vision. Just as in the sighted population, BVI instructors interested in teaching online will vary in the type and amount of vision they have. For some, a software program that magnifies the letters on the screen may be the only accommodation required. For others, a screen reader is necessary. The instructor may have been born totally blind, lost vision over the years or is currently losing vision. Each of these situations requires a different approach to working with that individual, and their base of knowledge may differ dramatically, depending on when they lost vision, if they had computer skills before losing vision and the extent of the vision loss. One way a BVI instructor can assist instructional support staff is to bring their computer with the screen reader loaded but all visual cues turned off. Allow the staff member to experience what it is like not being able to see the pages, the text or any other visual cues on the page. This small experience will immediately put into perspective the task the instructional support staff must undertake to work with a BVI instructor. Accessibility and the Skill Level of the Instructor Fortunately, those BVI individuals who are teaching in a university have already proven themselves to be highly intelligent, independent and tenacious in pursuit of their career. In addition to these traits, instructors must also be well-versed in the use of their screen reader software (i.e., JAWS) and its navigation capabilities. In addition to the use of a screen reader, the instructor must also already be computer literate and have: • Understanding and experience in the navigation of Web pages and hyperlinks • A concept of frames, their typical use and how you usually navigate with them Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 135 • Knowledge of several Web-based communication tools (e.g., e-mail, threaded discussions, etc.) • Good knowledge of a word processor that can save pages in HTML format Even with all of these skills, the author’s research with two individuals indicated it would take a minimum of 20 hours for the BVI instructor to gain a sufficient understanding of WebCT tools for effectively teaching a course. It would take another 120+ hours to begin to learn how to implement those tools. The primary issue here is that most instructors are developing these courses without additional pay or recognition of the effort required. With an effort required of three times the length to learn the tools as a sighted individual, one must begin to determine if it is worth the BVI instructor’s valuable time and effort to participate. Strategies for Working with BVI Instructors In this section, we have concentrated on working with a BVI instructor using a screen reader. Our own case study with Ms. DeWitz, as well as the interviews, indicated that learning to use the screen reader effectively with a course management or Web page tool is the single most important aspect of becoming more adept at teaching online and perhaps designing courses online. In discussing the strategies, we will assume the instructor is using JAWS, the most common screen reader. The strategies will be similar for other screen readers, but the keystrokes will differ. These strategies are directly attributable to Winslow Parker, Adaptive Technology Specialist at the Oregon Commission for the Blind, and Patti DeWitz, BVI instructor at Marylhurst University and Portland State University. The two major tasks confronting screen reader users is to find their way around the Web page and then to be able to move directly to the desired location. Finding one’s way around the Web pages first requires a mental map of Web page construction or application construction. This practice of providing a “mental map” is often left out by most faculty developers in their instruction with BVI individuals, because most sighted instructors have no experience using a screen reader or with low vision. Moving around the pages requires some knowledge of the keystrokes required for the JAWS use and for the application-specific use. Build a Mental Map of the Page Unlike the sighted user, the BVI user cannot quickly see the page layout, see the order of operations or click on an icon. For those users who were sighted previously and used a computer, this is somewhat easier, as the instructor can describe common computer mapping techniques. Using terms like “menu item” or “clickable buttons” will at least be familiar to these users. However, for those BVI instructors who were born blind or who never used a computer while sighted, this 136 Lynch & DeWitz is a much more difficult task. In this case, one must first back up to presenting some type of visual map of a page. This may include using a relief map that the instructor can feel to get a sense of page layout (e.g., navigation at the top, submission buttons at the bottom). The first task for the JAWS user is to get to know the page, by using the up and down arrows and the control keys. The up and down arrow keys move the user around the screen to understand how the page is laid out. For example, in using the WebCT bulletin board, the user needs to find the location of the frames, tables, messages and navigation bar. As each WebCT page and each Web page is different, the user must first “look around” whenever he or she encounters a new page. Move Directly to Desired Location After exploring the page, the individual then uses JAWS keystrokes to more quickly move to different places on the page or to other pages. It is also necessary for the person to understand application-specific keystrokes that may be needed to navigate pages as well. One point that is often overlooked by sighted instructors and misunderstood by BVI instructors is the difference and use of the JAWS cursor versus the PC cursor or virtual cursor. Using a synthetic voice, a screen reader echoes a portion of the screen dictated by the cursor movement executed by the user. The PC cursor is the typing cursor. It is also referred to by the names carat, insertion point, editing cursor and PC cursor. It is the cursor which, in most editing areas, looks like a large capital letter “I.” The JAWS cursor is the mouse cursor. It is used by blind people to explore the screen and, in rare situations, to execute a mouse click. Think about the mouse/ JAWS cursor as a way to “see” the screen as if you were using eyeballs. The virtual cursor in Internet Explorer is invisible and has the following PC cursor attributes: it moves through text with standard windows commands, and it is confined to the document. The virtual cursor also has some JAWS/mouse cursor attributes in that it does not allow editing; it is free to move around the screen. It is unlike the mouse or PC cursors in that it is invisible. Some basic JAWS commands that are important to know and teach any BVI individuals who are using the Web and working with online instruction are as follows: List commands such as: • Arrow key • Control arrow key for moving by word or paragraph • Control home and end for top and bottom Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty • • • • 137 Screen reader commands for exploring and location: Screen reader find key Link list command Frame list Insert for name of application and document name Forms mode commands for entering forms (often, dialogue boxes are seen as forms): • Enter to enter forms mode • Tab to move within form • Alt down arrow to open a combo box (also known as a pull-down menu) • Space to toggle check box or radio button • Enter to submit form Navigate Pages with Browser and JAWS Commands The browser and operating system of the BVI user also make a great deal of difference. In browsers, Netscape is inaccessible to all screen readers. So, Web pages must run under Internet Explorer for PCs. Another important factor is that many blind people work in text-based environments such as DOS or Unix/Linux. This means it is likely that they also use a text-based Web browser, usually “Lynx.” This adds another level of complexity, because most of Web CT (and other course management software) will be inaccessible to them. That is, things like forms, tables and frames will not be conveyed to their Web browser. In this situation, the solution is to train them to use their screen reader to access nontext-based pages or to provide other accommodations (such as a person who acts as the reader). A few basic JAWS commands are important to learn in order to assist the BVI instructor when first navigating pages. These are listed below: 1. To access a list of links on the page, use the “insf7.” When the list of links is accessed, the user can scroll down the list to find the desired link and then press enter to go to the lined. The user may also enter the letter of the link title to access the link. This keystroke brings up a dialogue box. 2. If the user cannot move from frame to frame with a tab or arrow keys, the keystroke “insf9” will bring up a list of the frames on the page, and the user can select the desired frame. 3. Using the “insf,” “ctsf” or “find” JAWS keystroke will also reduce the screen reader user’s “scrolling around time.” For example, the most common bulletin board uses are reading and responding to the messages. After the message has been opened, the instructor can use the “find” key to arrive at the beginning of the message instead of having to scroll through all the messages. After pressing the “find” keystroke, the user types the name of the nearest header. 138 Lynch & DeWitz To read the message, the user could type “No.” to get to the message number and then arrow down one space to read the message. Another way to decrease scrolling time is to shut off the navigation bar. 4. When typing any message in WebCT or any HTML-formatted page, the user uses the “enter” key on the edit field to open the form and then uses the question mark (?) key to close the form. When the form is opened, the user will hear “forms load on”; when the question mark key is pressed after typing the message, the phrase “forms mode off” will be heard. When using the strategies above, the JAWS user can access the discussion and private e-mail applications in WebCT. There are a few changes that would make the applications somewhat more “screen-reader user friendly.” If headers in combo boxes or in other operations could be identified, it would be easier to define the hierarchy of operations. However, even with this assistance, the JAWS user will not complete the tasks in these as quickly as a sighted individual. WebCT ACCESSIBILITY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Though the above-mentioned training greatly assists the BVI instructor in accessing, using and developing online courses, there are still a number of issues that could be addressed by WebCT to make the software more accessible. These include navigational difficulties and usability issues that, if remedied, would assist sighted and BVI instructors alike. Each one is detailed below. Navigational Problems Provide the Most Difficulty The BVI instructor has some of the same complaints that sighted instructors have in terms of WebCT navigation for the course designer/developer. Only, the difficulties are magnified because of the lack of visual cues: • There are no macros or key commands that allow you to go immediately to the function you desire. For example, on the discussion board, once the screen reader has read the message, you cannot easily reply. A sighted person would see the reply button and click on it, but a BVI person must click through each response choice until the “reply” function is found. This is time consuming and particularly frustrating if you do a great deal of communication with your students. • Navigational tools for development are most frequently at the bottom of the page or the top of the page (and not always consistent), forcing the screen reader to read through all the previous content to get to actions items. In addition, the screen reader must read each navigational button every time. Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 139 • Functions do not automatically execute once you have selected them. Instead, you must also go to the “GO” button to cause them to execute. This again slows the process, because the screen reader must read all other functions listed prior to getting to the GO button. Recommendation: Create a small link at the top of a page that would meet Web page accessibility standards, which would be read by JAWS. This link could even be “invisible” to sighted users (white on white for example). This link would be a “skip navigation” link or “view Web pages without navigation link.” This would allow faster exploration and use of pages. Building Web Pages and Providing Them as Content within the WebCT Environment WebCT provides no easy way in which to build Web pages or to add them to the WebCT environment. One must use another development tool (i.e., Dreamweaver, Composer or a word processor that converts to HTML) to develop the Web pages, then access the file manager one file at a time to upload, select and place pages into the appropriate course. These provide multiple difficulties for sighted and BVI instructors alike. Now the designer must learn two or three programs and use the outdated file manager to load the files. Recommendation: Provide a direct link to specific Web development tools (i.e., Word or Dreamweaver) and a direct upload command that allows multiple files and graphics to be loaded. Something similar to the FTP command used to load Web pages to a server would be a good step in lessening the number of different types of training that must occur. Composing and Accessing Private E-mail Selection of individuals to send a message requires not only selecting the individual(s), but then also finding the DONE button to cause it to place the names in the TO box. For each entry box, the JAWS reader indicates “forms load on,” and when the information is completed, ENTER is pressed and “forms load” is turned off. This can then be confusing, because there are two entry areas: the subject area and the message area. Sometimes you must maximize the screen in order to read a full sentence. Again, the JAWS reader has no way in which to indicate that in the form. Therefore, the reader may read several concatenated sentences that make no contextual sense to the user. Recommendation: Provide e-mail functionality similar to that already used in Netscape and Internet Explorer mail clients. That is, once the name is selected, it is automatically entered into the TO field. The less buttons must be located and clicked, the more accessible the software will become. 140 Lynch & DeWitz Composing Messages for and Accessing the Discussion Board As discussed above, the JAWS user can use a keystroke to get to the end of the message, which helps in moving more quickly. The search function is also helpful, because it narrows the field of selection. This function of WebCT is probably the most accessible. Participating in the Chat Room This function is not accessible because of the use of a java program applet. The JAWS cursor has difficulty selecting between the entry box (a form) for participating in the chat and the chat window, where all other participation is heard. In our experiment, the BVI instructor determined she could not use chat for her classes. However, she could assign small groups to use the chat and then access their transcripts in a text format for later review and grading. Recommendation: Provide a menu item (invisible if desired) that allows JAWS to toggle the virtual cursor between the input window and the chat window. Using the Whiteboard This function is not accessible or recommended for BVI instructors, as it is completely based on the use of graphics. Additionally, the function has had several bugs in the programming for all users. Using the Grade Book The grade book is somewhat accessible but requires another level of instruction and understanding in the concept of spreadsheet design, formulas, labels, etc. In our experiment, we determined that this was simply too much to undertake in initial training. Because the grade book is one of the functions most enjoyed by both faculty and their students, this is an area that needs to be reviewed. In our experiment, we decided to accommodate the BVI instructor by providing a teaching assistant to enter grades and thus make them available to the students in the class. Recommendation: Provide a Web-based form that would allow for designation of multiple columns, widths, format, etc. Then the grade book would be created from that listing instead of having to select each column one at a time and each functionality of the column one at a time. Implementing the Quiz Tool The quiz tool was another function that seemed far too complicated to attempt during initial training. This tool is often difficult for sighted individuals Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 141 as well. The instructional support staff, with the acquiescence of the BVI instructor, decided that the staff would be tasked with formatting and uploading/activating all quizzes for the course. MAJOR TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES CURRENTLY UNDERWAY The instructional technology community is becoming increasingly aware of the needs of disabled users. A number of recent initiatives have begun to provide tools to assist developers in the process of making their applications more accessible. Accessibility Support for Java Sun’s Accessibility Group and IBM’s Special Needs Systems joined forces to build accessibility support into Java from the outset. They invited and acted upon feedback from the disability community and developers of enabling technologies, and have received widespread recognition for their achievements. The accessibility API, Utilities and Bridge make it easy for developers to build Java applications that will be compatible with a range of enabling technologies. Swing class components automatically implement various features that contribute to direct accessibility. The Pluggable Look and Feel architecture separates components from their implementation, thus ultimately allowing the user to select whatever medium is appropriate for presentation (audio, Braille and so forth.) The appropriate classes and further information can be obtained from: http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/. Microsoft’s Active Accessibilty Functionality Microsoft has developed Active Accessibility—a new set of Windows functions that allow applications to provide relevant information for enabling technologies. This allows application developers to incorporate appropriate contextual information about user interfaces into their applications. It also provides standards that simplify the process of developing enabling devices. Microsoft has a range of resources and information available at http:// www.microsoft.com/enable/. W3C Web Access Initiative In April 1997, the World Wide Web (WWW) Consortium launched its Web Access Initiative that aimed to promote accessibility issues related to the use of the WWW and to contribute to developing the Web to increase its accessibility. They are further developing the Web Site Accessibility Guidelines. This is a compre- 142 Lynch & DeWitz hensive and detailed information resource for Web content authors, browser designers and developers of enabling technology. It was initiated at the Trace Research and Development Centre. The Web Access Initiative’s Web site, which provides news and updates as well as links to appropriate resources, is at http:// www.w3.org/WAI/. WebCT Future Plans In February 2002, one of the authors attended a WebCT demonstration of their new product “Vista,” which contains a complete redesign of the WebCT interface and thus of many features. This enterprise-based product is currently completing Beta testing and is due for release in Summer 2002. As part of this interface redesign, it appears that some of the accessibility issues are being addressed. Specifically, the product has been made to include the typical features of the Microsoft Windows™ operating system with drag and drop technology for file management. Along with this, will be “easy-to-use” macros or wizards that are accessible. The software also includes internal Web page development capabilities that may lessen the need for users to learn multiple software platforms for creating content. Finally, the new product provides macros for most of the designer actions. It was unclear during the demonstration as to how accessible these macros will be for BVI instructors. The good news is that WebCT has engaged an outside resource for testing usability and accessibility standards. We hope to test the new system over the next couple of years and determine if these improvements will indeed make instructional design and development in WebCT easier for sighted and BVI instructors alike. CONCLUSIONS It is possible for BVI instructors to create and teach online courses. The question each individual must ask is: “Is it worth it?” Our findings indicate that teaching online is not only possible but certainly worth the effort to learn the skills. This is particularly true if the instructor already has some comfort level with using computers and with using the Web. The accessibility of most course functions in WebCT currently support the online BVI instructor. In particular, the use of the threaded discussion tool is accessible and is an excellent tool for enhancing communication and providing a great interface for students and teachers. However, in terms of building actual Web courses, it is questionable as to whether the time and effort required to learn and implement these course-building skills, given the current state of WebCT, is worthwhile for the BVI instructor. The amount of training and the amount of frustration one must suffer would likely quickly Web-Based Teaching and Learning for Blind or Visually Impaired Faculty 143 dilute any excitement or motivation for the task and may cause the instructor to forego teaching online altogether. If navigation is improved and better linkage to common Web page development tools are provided in a future version of WebCT, then the functionality of designer options in WebCT would be greatly enhanced, and BVI instructors would feel more willing to undertake the training necessary to become their own Web course designers. In the meantime, it is recommended that a part of the accommodation for BVI instructors would be to provide instructional support staff to build and implement the Web pages, quizzes and grading tools in WebCT. Then, leave the instruction and communication to the BVI instructor. REFERENCES Accessible Society E-Letter. (2001). Even “accessible” Web sites remain difficult for people with disabilities. Retrieved 10/30/01 from http:// www.accessiblesociety.org/e_letters/eletter103001.htm. Chiang, Y. P., Bassi, L. J. & Javitt, J. C. (1992). Federal budgetary costs of blindness. The Milbank Quarterly, 70, 319-340. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. New York: Routledge. Nielsen Norman Group Usability Conference. (2001). Beyond ALT text: Making the Web easy to use for users with disabilities. Retrieved 1/10/02 from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility. University of Washington, Department of Ophthalmology. (2000). Statistics on Blindness and Blinding Diseases in the United States. Retrieved 1/24/02 from http://depts.washington.edu/ophthweb/statistics.html. 144 Lynch & DeWitz Part IV Studies in Application of Web Accessibility Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 145 Chapter VIII Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools: 2002 Follow-Up Study Axel Schmetzke University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, USA ABSTRACT The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that library programs and services must be accessible to people with disabilities. In an era in which much information resides in digitized form on the World Wide Web, the ADA’s mandate must be interpreted as applying not only to physical space but also to cyberspace. Just as in the physical world, proper design is a crucial issue. Only accessibly-designed Web pages ensure that all people, including those with print disabilities, have access to Web-based information. Previous studies indicate that a large proportion of campus, as well at the main libraries on these campuses. This study looks at all 56 North American ALAaccredited schools of library and information science (SLIS), as well at the main libraries on these campuses. Accessibility data collected in February 2002 are compared to 2000 data. The findings continue to give cause for concern: It is reasonable to assume that low Web page accessibility at the nation’s library schools reflects a lack of awareness about this issue among the leaders and trainers in the library profession. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 146 Schmetzke INTRODUCTION About 20% of the U.S. population, some 54 million individuals, have some level of disability. For 26 million Americans, the disability is severe (McNeil, 1997). In 1997–98, an estimated 428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled at two and four-year postsecondary educational institutions in the United States (Lewis & Farris, 1999); for Canada, current enrollment figures are estimated to exceed 100,000 (Fichten, Jennison, & Barile, 2001, p. 55). Enrollment figures for people with the types of disabilities particularly pertinent in the context of this article vary from study to study: 29 to 46% of people with disabilities have a learning disability, 4 to 16% are blind or visually impaired, and 14 to 23% have mobility or orthopedic impairments (Horn & Berktold, 1999; Lewis & Farris, 1999). Despite recent increases in enrollment, people with disabilities are underrepresented in postsecondary education. Longitudinal data indicate that those with high school diplomas are less likely to enroll in public four-year colleges, and that those who do enroll are less likely to graduate (Horn & Berktold, 1999). As Gadbow and Du Bois (1998) point out, the large majority of people under the age of 65 have the intellectual capacity to succeed in postsecondary education, yet most have not attended institutions of higher learning. With over half a million students with disabilities enrolled in North American colleges, and with many more that could benefit from postsecondary schooling, accessibility to campus and library resources is an important issue. Prodded by landmark laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), institutions of higher learning have worked hard to make their campuses physically accessible. Architectural barriers have been removed, assistive technology provided to those in need and a broad range of accommodations put in place where deemed reasonable. The burgeoning library literature on the ADA in the early 1990s (Mendle, 1995) reflects the vigor with which the library community sought to comply with this new law. Recent developments in telecommunication—particularly the coming of age of the Internet—have had a strong impact on our universities, including our university libraries. Over the past decade, the way information is disseminated in the campus environment has undergone drastic changes. Increasingly, print-based information is being substituted with its digital equivalent. Today, the Web, along with e-mail, provides the main, if not the sole, channel for a variety of education-supporting resources: official campus Web pages with crucial administrative information, class syllabi, course readings and Web-mediated distance education programs. In the midst of this digital revolution, libraries, with the purpose of storing and providing access to information, are the most affected. The shift from the physical to the virtual permeates almost every aspect of its operation. There is hardly a single type of library resource that has not shifted, to at least some extent, to a digitized, Web- Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 147 based format. Online catalogs, indexes and full-text article databases, encyclopedias and other reference works, e-books and e-journals, reserve materials, virtual reference services as well as information about the library (schedules, people contacts, library tutorials and help screens) are now commonly accessed through library Web sites. With the growing importance of digitized, Web-based information, the issue of access to information is no longer limited to the physical realm. Just as there are enabling and disabling conditions in the physical environment, so are there conditions in cyberspace (particularly the Web) that result in the inclusion or exclusion of people. To some extent, the ability to access Web-based information is a question of the proper assistive technology, such as a modified computer keyboard, an enlarged screen display or a properly configured screen-reading program. But assistive technology alone cannot overcome the barriers that are created at a more basic level: the format in which content is presented. If not properly formatted, or designed, Web pages are not accessible to people with certain disabilities—no matter how advanced and plentiful the assistive technology available to them may be. The shift toward electronic information presents tremendous opportunities for a large segment of people with disabilities—those with “print disabilities” (Coombs, 2000). With the help of screen readers, digitized text is, at least potentially, accessible to those who are unable to see print or who have difficulty reading it (people who are blind or visually impaired and people with certain learning disabilities) (Mace, 1996; Sreenivasan, 1996). With suitably accommodated input devices, many individuals who cannot hold books or turn pages because of motor impairments are able to navigate through pages and pages of electronic text. Ironically, the very technology that has opened the doors to unprecedented access is now at risk of closing them again. With the evolution of the World Wide Web into a complex and glamorous multimedia entity, designers, who are often ignorant of principles of accessible design, are likely to create access barriers that are insurmountable, even with the most sophisticated screen reader, and thus, leave people with print disabilities stranded. As Courtney Deines-Jones (1996) puts it, [m]any multimedia sites ... are nightmares. Setting up a home page is quite simple, and many developers were so impressed with the visual possibilities that they built in pretty wallpaper, fancy fonts, and audiovisual clips galore. People with disabilities quickly realized that many of these sites were difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate (pp. 61-62). In 1994, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international standard setting industry body, was founded to develop common protocols for the evolution 148 Schmetzke of the Web. In 1996, this group sponsored the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999) and its companion Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999), which were developed by this initiative, reflect the input of many players and must be considered to be the most authoritative source on the subject. Its WAI Quick Tips Reference Card (2000a), which introduces the key concepts of accessible design, includes, among others, the following recommendations: use the ALT tag to describe the function of images and animations; use client-side image maps and provide text for hot-spots; for hypertext, use text that is meaningful by itself; use headers, lists, and consistent page organization; summarize graphs and charts, or use the LONGDESC attribute; give meaningful titles to frames, and use NOFRAMES. LEGAL MANDATE FOR ACCESSIBLE WEB DESIGN Of the different federal civil-rights statutes that have some bearing on electronic and information technology, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (Section 508) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 are likely to be the most relevant. Section 508 requires federal agencies to implement guidelines for procuring, developing, maintaining and using information technology that is accessible to people with disabilities. To make Section 508 enforceable, the Access Board published specific standards (effective as of June 21, 2001) that spell out what makes information-technology products—computers, software, electronic office equipment and Web-based services—accessible to people with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing and mobility impairments. As of this writing, it is unclear to which extent, if any, Section 508 may reach beyond federal agencies and may apply to states and, possibly, educational institutions. While Section 508 speaks about “requirements for Federal department and agencies,” the U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) asserts that “states which receive Federal funds under the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, are required by that Act to comply with Section 508.” The confusion about the exact reach of Section 508 is reflected in the diversity found among the policy statements issued by universities—a diversity that ranges from an unambiguous “No, it does not apply” to a clear-cut “Yes, it does apply,” with various shades of in-between positions, such as the following: “Section 508 may, or may not, apply to universities. Let us err on the safe side and incorporate it in our policy.” Tremendous diversity in legal opinion even exists among institutions within the same state. For example, while the Office of General Counsel at California State University (2001), after having reviewed “relevant statutes and regulations,” Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 149 concludes that “the CSU is not required to comply with section 508,” the Chancellor’s Office at California Community Colleges (2001) contends that regulations under Section 508 “are applicable to the states by virtue of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. § 3002).” Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the controversy surrounding the applicability of Section 508, the access standards issued under this law may ultimately become accepted as the de facto standard by which compliance with implied electronic accessibility mandates under other laws (such as ADA) will be determined (Noble, in press). Support for this position may be found in the fact that some (mostly larger) universities have already adopted the Access Board standards in their policies. An annotated list compiled by Johnson and Ruppert (last updated November 2001) includes 19 institutions that require compliance with Section 508 in their Web accessibility policy statements. The “Policy Governing World Wide Web Accessibility” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2001), for example, states that the “standards of the Federal Rehabilitation Act (Section 508) are consistent with the W3C Guidelines and provide achievable, well documented guidelines for implementation.” Title II of the ADA (1990), which applies to public entities, requires that universities make their programs and facilities—and this includes information technology—accessible to people with disabilities by stipulating, in general terms, 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 any such entity (Section 202). Other sections of the ADA, including those that apply to the private sector, include requirements for “effective communication,” “reasonable accommodations” and “auxiliary aids and services.” When Congress passed the ADA in 1990, the World Wide Web, as we know it today, did not exist. Most electronic information existed in text format, which is easily read with screen readers. The potential barriers created by poor Web design were certainly beyond the horizon of legislators and federal administrators. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the ADA, while mandating equal access to an institution’s resources and while recognizing auxiliary aids and services as necessary means to make communication effective for all people, does not specifically address the design of electronic documents. In September 1996, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an opinion statement (letter #204) that directly addressed the issue 150 Schmetzke of Web accessibility. States and local governments as well as places of public accommodation 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 letter then points out several means of ensuring Web page accessibility, including Lynx-compatible design and the provision of alternative text for information presented in a graphical format. Some people have criticized the DOJ for not taking a more adamant, proactive stance and for failing to provide guidance on Web accessibility (see Waddell, 1999). Also, despite the DOJ opinion statement, some controversy remains as to whether the ADA should apply to Web site design (Committee on the Judiciary, 2000). Perhaps the strongest support for the ADA’s applicability to accessible Web design is provided by the U.S. Department of Education, California Office for Civil Rights (OCR), in its letters issued in connection with a statewide ADA compliance review involving California colleges. Particularly instructive are the letters addressed to the Chancellor of California Community Colleges. One of the major concerns addressed in these letters pertains to the acquisition of technology and expansion into distance education, including the Internet. The OCR criticizes that the practice of providing more and more information electronically, through the Internet or campus LANs, is often not accompanied by considerations for the barrier-free design of Web pages that contain the information. As a remedy, the California Office for Civil Rights (1998) suggests the development of access guidelines for distance learning and campus Web pages: If guidelines to ensure access are made available to colleges now, such information on how to structure distance learning programs and campus WebPages will not only ensure that colleges meet their legal obligations but will also enable colleges to save significant expense over the later cost of “retrofitting” these programs after substantial investment has been made in inaccessible structures. Many, if not most colleges and universities have developed Web policies for their campuses. Precise, representative figures about how many of these include accessible Web guidelines are difficult to come by. Only one survey known to this author (North Carolina University, 2001) sought to find out whether institutions of Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 151 higher education had “a documented policy regarding Web accessibility.” Of the 72 participating institutions, the vast majority of which were located in the United States, 22% responded affirmatively to this inquiry. Because participation in this survey was solicited through announcements in circles in which awareness about disability-related issues can be assumed to be high (listservs such as DSSHE, EASI and ADTECH-PS), this figure is likely to be considerably lower for a more representative sample. While exact, representative figures are not available, it is clear that the number is growing. An extensive Web search undertaken by this author two years ago yielded barely more than a handful of accessible Web design guidelines or policies. A more recent annotated list compiled by Johnson and Ruppert (Nov. 2001) includes a total of 58 U.S. universities. There is significant variance among the guidelines and polices. For example, San Jose State University’s (1998) World Wide Web Policies and Guidelines (1998), drafted four years ago, recommend that “Webmasters phase in access as soon as possible, especially as Web pages are revised and redesigned.” The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (2000) policy, noticeably stronger in tone, requires that “all Web pages associated with administration and services, courses of instruction, departmental programs, and institute sponsored activities, must conform to the Web accessibility principles” (emphasis added). Similarly, the Recommended Draft of Regis University’s Web Accessibility Policy (n.d.) emphasizes principles of universal design and mandates that all Web pages associated with the institution must conform to its Web accessibility guidelines. The University of Wisconsin System operates under the recommendations developed by its Committee on Access to Technology for Individuals with Disabilities, and four of its campuses (UW-Eau Claire, UWMadison, UW-Stevens Point and UW-Whitewater) have put in place their own ADA-compliant Web design policies (Schmetzke, 2001e). Particularly stringent, as far as Web page design is concerned, is the new UW Madison policy adopted in October 2001, which requires that “all new or revised Web pages published or hosted by the University must be in compliance with the World Wide Web standards defined in the Federal Rehabilitation Act Section 508, specifically subsections 1194.1 through 1194.22 and subsection 1194.31.” Older (“legacy”) pages need to be brought up to the same level of compliance no later than November 1, 2003. The policies of California Community Colleges (CCC) stand out for their comprehensiveness: CCC’s Guidelines for Producing Instructional and Other Printed Materials in Alternate Media for Persons with Disabilities, adopted in 2000, contain a section that deals specifically with “Considerations for Formatting E-Text and Designing Software and Webpages.” In addition, CCC’s “Distance Education: Access for Students with Disabilities” policy, promulgated in 1999, mandates that all distance education resources, including Web pages, “must 152 Schmetzke be designed to afford students with disabilities maximum … access … ‘anytime, anywhere’ without the need for outside assistance.” Distance education resources must have “‘built-in’ accommodations” and their interfaces must be “accessible to ‘industry standard’ assistive computer technology in common use by people with disabilities” (p. 13). For campuses seeking to establish an accessible Web policy, WebAIM (2000), a grant-funded project seeking to improve accessibility to online learning opportunities for all people, offers a prototype standard, “the Web-AIM Standard for Web Accessibility and Universality.” Calling for compliance with a particularly narrow set of the W3C/WAI Guidelines mentioned earlier (all Priority 1 and Priority 2, as well as some Priority 3 checkpoints), these standards fall on the more stringent end of the policy spectrum. To the extent that the findings in a recent survey involving predominantly smaller college and university libraries can be generalized to all types of libraries, accessibility guidelines are not likely to be included in library Web policies. While about half of the responding libraries reported to have Web policies or guidelines in place, none of the guidelines, standards and policy manuals submitted specifically address the need for barrier-free design. “The use/standardization of headers and footers, navigational elements, data files updated, format/type of information to include, [and] indication of page authorship” were reported to be the most typical design and content issues addressed (Traw, 2000, p. 4). A thorough Web search confirms the above survey results. Only three university libraries with accessible Web policies were found, all of which are closely aligned with the W3C/WAI guidelines. The policy of the University Libraries at the University of Akron (2000) is softest in tone in that it appears to recommend, not to require, compliance with the W3C/WAI guidelines. In contrast, Yale University Library’s (2000) policy is more strongly worded, leaving no doubt about its mandatory nature. “The Yale University libraries will comply with the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Guidelines.” The policy recommended by the Networked Information Steering Committee at the University of Michigan’s Library (2000) stands out in that it also addresses purchases from outside sources: For Web pages purchased from outside vendors for use by UM Library clientele, compliance with Priority 1 guidelines will be an integral part of the evaluation process. To assure we enable access to users with the broadest range of hardware, we suggest that selectors test the resource using a variety of browsers, on a variety of platforms; consider performance issues for dial-in users; and assure that users with lower-end systems still have access to basic functionality of the resources we provide. Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 153 Any discussion of library Web policies would be incomplete if it did not include at least a reference to the “Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy” adopted by the American Library Association’s (ALA) governing body, the ALA Council, in January 2001. This new policy, which was written by the Americans with Disabilities Act Assembly of the Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA), underscores the need to provide inclusive services, as is mandated by law. While it does not address in detail access issues pertaining to the online environment, its call for “remote access to the OPAC” and “remote electronic access to library resources,” along with a host of other accessible services, seems to imply a mandate for barrier-free Web design. Unfortunately, not all ALA-issued policy statements consider the needs of people with disabilities. The “Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services,” published by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a major division within the ALA, are a case in point. Given the broad-based input that led to the latest major (1998) revision of the ACRL “Guidelines,” it is surprising that nowhere in its ten sections is accessibility for students with disabilities addressed. This also applies to the most recent version (2000). While the philosophy section underscores that “access to adequate library services and resources is essential,” and the services section requires that library services “should be designed to meet effectively a wide range of informational, bibliographic, and user needs,” disabilityrelated access needs are not mentioned (Schmetzke, 2001b). LITERATURE REVIEW The concept of barrier-free, or universal, design has been around for at least several decades; to varying degrees, it has become codified in various building guidelines and regulations.1 Its original focus—the removal of architectural barriers preventing wheelchair users from entering buildings and using their physical facilities—has evolved over the years into the broader notion of universal design that extends into all design disciplines (architecture, exterior and interior design, product development and communications) and that seeks to design environmental elements in such a way that they work well for all people. Universal design attempts to meet the needs of all people, and includes those of all ages, physical abilities, sensory abilities, and cognitive skills. Universal design is the design methodology most appropriate for a true democracy, since it includes all types of people in the design process. Even though the resultant product may not be usable by absolutely everyone, they are usable by as many people as possible. Abilities are 154 Schmetzke emphasized, and disabilities are de-emphasized. A single solution instead of multiple ones is the goal (Anders & Fechtner, 1992, p. 10). While the notion of universal design has been discussed extensively in the architectural and exterior/interior design literature (Branson, 1991; Lebovich, 1993; Peloquin, 1994; Wilkoff & Abed, 1994), its application to the electronic environment was, until a few years ago, rarely addressed in traditional print media. Instead, the theme was mainly carried by a rather tightly knit network of dedicated people who gathered at disability- and Web-related conferences and shared their insights in presentations, white papers and Web-posted articles. In 1996, for example, at the Fifth International World Wide Web Conference, Mike Paciello organized a forum that brought together experts in assistive technology, Web design and information technology to discuss the development of international strategies for creating an accessible Web environment. In the same year, papers delivered at the 11th Annual Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, sponsored by the Center on Disability at the California State University-Northridge (CSUN), included the following topics: “Design Considerations for Software and Web Pages to Allow Access for People with Physical Disabilities,” “Libraries without Walls,” “Accessing the World Wide Web (WWW) for People Who Are Not Sighted,” “Accessibility to the Electronic Highway: Government Policy and the Right of All Americans to Communicate” and “Increasing Access to World Wide Web Sites for Blind and Visually Impaired Computer Users.” With a few exceptions (e.g., Brittain, 1995), accessible Web design did not begin to receive coverage as a theme in the library literature until six years ago. While numerous authors addressed the question of access to electronic resources by people with disabilities, their focus was mainly on adaptive technology (e.g., Roatch, 1992; Lazzaro, 1993; Walling & Irwin, 1995), not on design-related accessibility of content. This is not particularly surprising. After all, the pre-Web electronic environment was mainly text-based and did not pose the design issues associated with Web pages. It must be noted, though, that after the Web had gained some momentum, the library literature dealing specifically with Web design, with a few exceptions (e.g., Metz & Junion-Metz, 1996), did not address the issue of accessible design. For example, Kovacs and Kovacs (1997), in their “Cybrarian‘s Guide to Developing Successful Internet Programs and Services,” expressed concern for access issues mainly in terms of Internet connectivity. When they urged the reader to consider for whom the information is provided, they did not think of people with various abilities, but of end users with a “particular level of Internet connectivity,” for which the provision of highly graphical information may, or may not, be suitable. Another case in point is Garlock and Piontek’s (1996) book entitled “Building the Service-Based Library Web Site.” Nowhere in this manual Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 155 were people with disabilities considered as potential users. Published by the American Library Association, this book is likely to have influenced the design of many library Web sites. Starting in 1996, accessible Web design emerged as an issue in the professional library literature. A trail-blazing special issue, copublished by Library Hi Tech and Information Technology and Disabilities and dedicated to “libraries and the empowerment of persons with disabilities,” covered in much depth the subject of access to digital information sources. Dixon’s article, in particular, focuses on the creation of accessible Web pages. Mike Paciello (1996a, 1996b), who was instrumental in launching the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative, published two articles on accessible Web design in Florida Libraries. Two articles in Choice addressed the need to design libraries for accessibility and spelled out major principles of universal Web design (Burgstahler, Comden, & Fraser, 1997; Fraser, Comden, & Burgstahler, 1998). In 1997, Oryx Press published “Information Access and Adaptive Technology” (Cunningham & Coombs). Chapter 11 included a detailed discussion of the Web-access problems faced by people with disabilities as well as guidelines for accessible design. The Chronicle of Higher Education, widely read in all academic circles, included an article that stressed the similarity between physical access hurdles and barriers imposed by poorly designed Web pages (Young, 1998). A more recent piece in the same publication discussed the mandate for accessible campus Web pages in connection with Section 508 (Foster, 2001). The past three years have seen a noticeable increase in libraryrelated journal publications that seek to raise awareness concerning the need for accessible Web design and provide practical tips (e.g., Kautzman, 1998; Casey, 1999; Rouse, 1999; Hansen, 1999; Minow, 1999; Oppenheim & Selby, 1999; Blake, 2000; Jobe, 2000; Lescher, 2000; Coombs, 2000; Brown, 2001; Byerley, 2001; Coonin, 2001; Kinder, 2001; Mates, 2001; Williamson, 2001; Polanka & Gorman, 2001; Schmetzke, 2001a). At least three journals have devoted special theme issues related to online accessibility: The October 2001 issue of Computers in Libraries, which deals with specialized hardware and software for people with disabilities, includes several articles concerned with Web accessibility (Vol. 21, No. 9). Information Technology and Disability just published a special issue that covers the broader theme of inclusive instruction in an online distance education environment (2002, Vol. 8, No.1). Later this year, Library Hi Tech will publish two special-theme issues on the accessibility of a wide spectrum of Web-based library resources, including aggregated journal indexes/databases, e-journals, e-reserve and courseware (Vol. 20, No. 2 and Vol. 20, No.4). Since 1999, the American Library Association (ALA) has published several works that emphasize accessible Web design: McNulty’s (1999) book, entitled Accessible Libraries on Campus. A Practical Guide for the Creation of 156 Schmetzke Disability-Friendly Libraries, which includes two articles on accessible Web design (Dixon, 1996; McNulty & Stedfeld, 1999); Mates’ (2000) work, Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible to All; and Garlock and Piontek’s (1999) advanced guide to Designing Web Interfaces to Library Services and Resources, which, unlike the authors’ earlier publication in 1996, now includes a chapter on accessible design. The ALA also took over the distribution of a multimedia package containing presentation materials on “Universal Access: Electronic Resources in Libraries,” prepared by Burgstahler, Comden and Fraser (1996) for the DO-IT project (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, Technology). Other ALA publications now also incorporate concern for universal Web design. While the second (2001) edition of Lazzaro’s book on Adaptive Technologies for Learning & Work, like the original 1993 edition, deals mainly with adaptive technology, it now includes a chapter on “Accessing the Internet and Intranets,” with a brief discussion of accessible Web design principles. Chapter Four in Sharpless Smith’s book on Web-Based Instruction. A Guide for Libraries, which is entitled “Designing the User Interface,” includes a section that addresses the needs of users with disabilities and explains, in some detail, the W3C/WAI Accessibility Guidelines. Among the few studies that sought to provide a larger picture about ADA compliance among libraries, none has looked at the design of the online environment. Two earlier studies, focusing on Ohio, revealed that the degree of compliance is the highest with regard to physical access to buildings—in public libraries (Scheiman, 1994) as well as in college and university libraries (Carpenter, 1995). Scheiman also reports a high compliance rate for the provision of materials in alternative formats. While a more recent survey by Wiler and Lomax (2000), which included academic libraries in the Southeastern United States, inquired about “special equipment to assist individuals with disabilities” —50% of the responding library directors reported that their libraries had equipment, such as magnifiers, scanners and readers, special keyboards and book grabbers—its questions did not probe into the accessibility of online resources. What is currently known about the latter does not stem from questionnaire-based surveys but from direct studies of institutional Web pages. WEB PAGE ACCESSIBILITY RESEARCH This section provides a comprehensive review of all Web accessibility studies known to this author—with the two following exceptions: studies that do not provide separate data pertaining to either libraries or institutions of higher learning (Duchateau, Archambault, & Burger, 1999; U.S. Department of Justice, 2000; Web Usability Index, 2002) and Hinn’s (1999) study, which does not provide any Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 157 quantitative data. Except for Ormes and Peacock (1999), who employed a different evaluation tool (WebWatch), and for the University of Wisconsin Madison study (Learning Technology and Distance Education, 2000) and Craven’s (2000) project, which also involved “manual” checking of design features currently inaccessible to Bobby, all research reviewed relied exclusively on the automated checking capabilities of Bobby, an accessibility validation tool described in more detail in the methodology section below. Throughout this article, the term “Bobby approved” is used, in a rather lax manner, to indicate that no major access barriers (“Priority 1” errors—in the terminology of the W3C/WAI guidelines) were detected by Bobby’s automated function. It appears that the gradually emerging awareness about the need for accessible Web design, as reflected in the recent library literature, has not yet manifested itself in the actual design of library Web pages. Schmetzke (1999), who studied the Web accessibility of campus and library Web pages at the 13 four-year campuses within the University of Wisconsin system, found that, on the average, only 31% of the libraries’ top level pages (home pages plus the next layer of library pages linked to them) were free of major accessibility problems. Follow-up studies, a year later and two years later, revealed a mild increase in the percentage of accessible pages to 40 and 43%, respectively (Schmetzke, 2000a, 2001d). The data varied dramatically from campus to campus. At five of the libraries included in the 2001 study, less than 20% of the Web pages were free of major accessibility problems, while three libraries had a Web site with more than 80% of its pages devoid of major access barriers. Web accessibility at campus libraries in other states deviates little from the above findings. Blake (2000), who looked at a set of Web pages comprised, for the most part, of the home pages of college and university library pages, found only 37% of the available pages to be accessible. Data collected by Yu (in press) in 2001 show 38% of the California Community Colleges library home pages that could be evaluated with Bobby to be free of access barriers. Examining the colleges and universities on Yahoo’s list of “America’s 100 Most Wired Colleges,” Lilly and Van Fleet (1999) discovered that a mere 40% of the library home pages were accessible. They reported that two types of errors occurred most frequently: failure to provide alternative text for images and the lack of alternative text for image map hot-spots. So far, the highest library accessibility rate (59%) was found by Schmetzke (2001a) in a nonrandom national sample, which because of its composition —campuses that, according to U.S. News & World Report (1999), had the nation’s 24 most highly ranked graduate library programs—overrepresented larger institutions. Two U.S. studies provide insight into the accessibility of public library Web sites. Kester (1999), who looked at 48 North Carolina public libraries, found that 158 Schmetzke only 21% of the home pages were Bobby-approved. Lilly and Van Fleet (2000) evaluated the public libraries identified by Hennen (1999) as the top ten public libraries within each of ten population groups (defined in terms of the size of the service population). The authors found that of the 74 libraries that had a Web site, 19% were free of Bobby-detectable Priority 1 errors. The vast majority of accessible home pages were those maintained by libraries servicing the two largest populations (over 250,000). This author is aware of only two studies on library Web accessibility conducted outside of North America, and these reveal similar results. Craven (2000), in a British study, reported that 38 of the 103 tested university library home pages received Bobby approval, and that the majority of problems involved missing or inappropriately used alternative text. Ormes and Peacock (1999), who—unlike all the other studies reviewed here—use WebWatch instead of Bobby as the evaluation tool, examined 97 public library home pages in the United Kingdom. The authors found, among others, that of the 93 home pages that contained images, only 30 included ALT tags for all IMG elements, and that on two of the 17 home pages with client-side image maps, the ALT attribute of the AREA element was consistently employed. The authors were particularly concerned with the high incidence of invalid html—almost all home pages contained “potentially problematic html”—which can cause access problems for text browsers. Studies on the accessibility of other (nonlibrary) top-level campus Web pages barely paint a rosier picture. Schmetzke’s (1999, 2000a, 2001d) campus Web accessibility data pertaining to the thirteen major University of Wisconsin campuses showed only a mild increase in the accessibility of top-level Web pages (home pages plus linked pages) from 48% in 1999, to 52% in 2001, with a dip down to 43% in 2000. National campus figures show a somewhat mixed picture. Rowland and Smith (1999; cited in Rowland, 2000), who collected accessibility data from a random sample of colleges, universities and online learning institutions from all 50 states (n = 400), found only 22% of the home pages to be accessible. Jackson (1999; cit. in Jackson-Sanborn, Odess-Harnish, & Warren, 2001) reported considerably higher percentages. About 47% of the home pages at the15 highereducation sites included in his study received Bobby approval. Percentages in the same neighborhood were also found by other researchers: Jackson-Sanborn, Odess-Harnish and Warren (2001), whose study included the 100 college sites reported by the Web site “100hot” to be the most frequently visited sites in this category, discovered 43% of their home pages to meet Bobby’s approval. Schmetzke (2000b), in a nonrandom national sample of 24, mainly larger, campus Web sites, found 50% of the campus Web pages (home pages plus the next layer of pages directly linked to them) to be free of major access problems. However, just as with library pages, there was much variation among campus pages with Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 159 regard to their accessibility. Five campuses had Web pages of which less than 20% were accessible; on four campuses, more than 80% of the Web pages were free of access barrier. Only on one campus, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, were the top-level Web pages found to contain no access barriers. A few researchers have studied Web accessibility in the context of distance education. Walden, Rowland and Bohman (2000; cited in Rowland, 2000), following up on the study by Rowland and Smith (1999) referred to above, focused on home pages that served as “entry points” for distance-education students. These data, collected in November 1999, revealed results similar to those found in the original study. Only a mere 24% of these pages were void of major access barriers. Similarly, Yu (in press), in a study of home page accessibility at California Community Colleges, found that only 28% of the Web pages of distance education sites were free of major accessibility problems—far lower than comparable figures for other sets of Web pages at this institution (38% for campus pages, 38% for library pages and 49% for disability services pages). Schmetzke (2001c) looked at two sets of distance education sites, for each of which he evaluated the accessibility of home pages plus the layer of Web pages directly linked to them. Set 1 included the Web sites of 219 postsecondary distance education institutions listed in Marcie Kisner Thorson’s (2000) book “Campus-free College Degrees,” a “guide to accredited college degrees through distance learning.” Set 2 included the Web sites of 12 major regional or national North American organizations concerned with distance learning, such as the American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE) and the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). Schmetzke found major accessibility problems (referred to as “Priority 1” errors by Bobby, the evaluation tool used) associated with both sets. Of all the 219 sites included in Set 1, Bobby found only 15% of the home pages to be free of major accessibility errors. When the pages directly linked to the 219 home pages were included (which made for a total of 3366 pages), Bobby found 23% of the pages to be accessible. The Web pages of distance-education organizations (Set 2) were not paragons of virtue, either, as far as accessibility is concerned. Only one of the 12 home pages received Bobby approval. When the pages directly linked to the home pages were included, 18% were found to be free of major accessibility problems. At five Web sites, none of the pages received Bobby approval; at only one Web site were all the pages accessible. Problems with accessibility are not limited to the top layers of institutional Web sites (campus, library, distance education pages) but extend to the Web pages put up by the individual university departments. A study within the University of Wisconsin-Madison revealed that only 38% of the 101 departmental home pages evaluated with Bobby were free of accessibility problems. After an additional, more stringent manual assessment, only 14% passed as 160 Schmetzke barrier-free (Learning Technology and Distance Education, 2000). The accessibility data of departmental home pages at all 13 four-year colleges within the University of Wisconsin system provide a similar picture. In 1999, 27% of these were found to be free of major barriers. By 2001, this figure had increased to 38% (Schmetzke, 1999, 2001d). A few studies focused on the accessibility of specific types of department or program Web sites. Guthrie (2000), who examined the accessibility of Web sites of 80 colleges of communications and schools of journalism, found that 21% of their home pages were void of major barriers. Flowers, Bray and Algozzine (1999), who evaluated the home pages of 89 special-education programs for accessibility, reported that a mere 27% of these did not contain any accessibility problems and that most of the problems found constituted major access barriers. They also discovered that the vast majority of accessibility errors (83%) were easy to correct. That Web sites cannot be assumed to be accessible simply because of their disability-related content, or because the people who maintain it have disabilities themselves, was further confirmed by two other studies. Rowland (1999) reported that only 45% of University Affiliated Program (UAP) home pages were barrierfree, despite the fact that UAP’s mission involves, among other services, service, technical assistance and information dissemination to the disability community. Similarly, a study by the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (1998), involving the Web sites of 213 programs funded by this agency, showed that only 43% of the home pages were accessible. In April 2000, Schmetzke (2001a) evaluated the Web sites of 24 schools of library and information science (SLIS) which, according to U.S. News & World Report in its 1999 guide to America’s Best Graduate Schools, ranked highest among the 48 ALA-accredited programs in the United States. The data, which will be presented in more detail along with the most recent (2002) data, revealed that only 23% of SLIS Web pages were accessible. There was much variation among sites. Only one of the 24 SLIS sites (at Florida State University) was found to be 100% accessible. At eight SLIS sites, or one third of sites included in the study, not even a single page was free of major access barriers. RATIONALE FOR THIS STUDY AND ITS RESEARCH FOCUS The accessibility data reviewed above indicate that Web sites tend to be fraught with access barriers. At the very best, the average accessibility of Web pages per site was found to be 59%. Typically, the figures were considerably lower, especially for library school Web sites. The findings by Schmetzke (1999, 2000a, Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 161 2000d), which show a mild increase in the accessibility of Wisconsin’s campus libraries, point to the possibility that data that are one or two years old may have outlived their currency. With the rapid changes taking place in Web technology, and with the recent wave of awareness-generating library literature on accessible Web design, Web accessibility at North American libraries may differ from what the data suggested two years ago. While currency and large-scale geographic coverage were the initial reasons for this study (as they were for its predecessor), other, at least equally important considerations contributed to its final design. The sites selected for this study were not randomly chosen; included were all North American campuses, including those of Canada and Puerto Rico, that offer an ALA-accredited graduate program in library and information science. Several reasons guided this selection: (a) Librarians tend to constitute a fairly homogeneous group. Recognizing the lack of diversity within the profession, library schools are struggling to attract minority students, including those with disabilities, into their programs. Unless library schools ensure that their online resources are accessible to all, they will continue to discourage people with print disabilities from entering the library profession. (b) Assuming that a library school’s Web design reflects the degree of awareness about accessibility issues among its faculty, one can gauge what prospective librarians are likely to learn about accessible design, and to which extent they are prone to implement accessible design principles once they have entered the profession. (c) The collection of accessibility data pertaining to both libraries and library schools also makes it possible to examine the current connection between the accessibility of library Web sites and library school Web sites. (d) The previous 2001 study, for which the data were collected in March/April 2000, was limited to campuses with the nation’s 24 most highly ranked library schools, as published by U.S. News & World Report in its 1999 guide to America’s Best Graduate Schools. By including all 55 ALA accredited graduate library programs, this study gives a more complete picture than the previous, more limited study could provide. (e) By revisiting the sites included in the previous study, this study affords a look at the changes that have taken place over the past two years and some of the factors associated with such changes. The major research questions addressed in this study are as follows: 1. How accessible are the Web sites of North American library schools in 2002? 2. How accessible are the Web pages of the major library Web sites on the same campuses? 3. Is there a correlation between the Web accessibility of library sites and that of library school sites? 4. Is there a correlation between library school rank and Web site accessibility? 5. Which types of accessibility barriers occur most frequently? 6. Has Web site accessibility changed over the past two years? 162 Schmetzke 7. If there has been a change, is there a recognizable pattern to it? a. Is there a connection between changes in accessibility and library school ranking? b. Is there a difference between those sites that have undergone a major redesign during the past two years and those that have not? c. Does Web site accessibility in 2000 correlate with that in 2002? RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Terminological Clarification In response to recent developments in the realm of library science and information, many of the traditional library schools have redefined their identity and reorganized their linkage to other academic disciplines. While most library schools call themselves “Schools of Library and Information Science,” some have adopted new names, such as the “College of Information Science and Technology” at Drexel University, the “School of Communication, Information and Library Studies” at Rutgers University, and the “School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.” For for the sake of convenience, the terms “library school,” “school of library and information science” and the latter’s acronym “SLIS,” are used in this article interchangeably, no matter what the organizational unit (college, school, department or program) and the exact name of a particular “library school” may be. Scope and Variables of Study For each of the 56 campuses that offer ALA-accredited graduate programs in library and information studies, Web page accessibility for both the main library Web site and the SLIS Web site was determined with the help of Bobby (further described below). For each site, Bobby was set to check the home page and the next layer of hyperlinked pages (on the same site) for accessibility errors. When the home page was part of a frame arrangement, adjustments were made to evaluate the pertinent frame(s) as well as the pertinent pages directly linked to this (these) frame(s). Only pages without any major (“Priority 1”) accessibility problems were rated Bobby-approved. The percentage of Bobby-approved pages was then used as an indicator of a site’s overall accessibility. With two sites visited for each of the 56 campuses, and with an average of approximately 21 examined pages per site, a total of 2334 Web pages were checked by Bobby in connection with this study. The reason for limiting the scope of tested Web pages to only one link layer down from the home pages was not arbitrary. Bobby could have been easily set to Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 163 look at all pages within the domain. In that case, some catalog and periodical indexes pages would have been included. In the author’s opinion, this would have been undesirable. While the accessibility of online catalogs and periodical indexes certainly needs to be studied (see further below), this issue would be better investigated separately. Evaluation Tool Site accessibility was determined with the downloadable version of Bobby 3.1.1, the same version used in the author’s previous study (2001a). Bobby is an accessibility validator created by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), and it was created to help people check the accessibility of their Web pages.2 The downloadable version of Bobby, which runs as an application on a personal computer, is capable of testing larger sets of Web pages on a given Web site. As Bobby’s creators’ point out, “it is ideal for large scale accessibility testing” (CAST, 2002). For each page checked, Bobby provides information pertaining to the type, number and location of accessibility errors, both minor and major ones. Bobby also issues a summary report for each set of Web pages. When preparing for this study, much thought was given as to which version of Bobby to use. This author had used Bobby 3.1.1 for his previous investigation of library and library school Web sites. Since then, three other versions—Bobby 3.2, Bobby 3.3 and Bobby WW—had been developed. Because the difference between Bobby 3.3 and Bobby WW consisted mainly of the addition of U.S. Government Section 508 compliance checking, which is not utilized in this study, the author faced a choice between Bobby 3.1.1, Bobby 3.2 and Bobby 3.3/Bobby WW. The final choice fell on Bobby 3.1.1 for the following reasons: First, a preliminary test run, in which 12 Web sites (a total of 288 pages) were evaluated with each of the three Bobby versions, revealed the closest similarity between the Bobby 3.1.1 and the Bobby WW evaluation results. While the correlations for the numbers of errors detected per site between Bobby 3.1.1 and Bobby WW, Bobby 3.1.1 and Bobby 3.2 and Bobby 3.2 and Bobby WW, were all close to one (the Pearson product–moment coefficient was .9999 for all three pairs), the total numbers of errors detected (1105 by Bobby 3.1.1, 1098 by Bobby 3.2 and 1106 by Bobby WW) showed more similarity between the first pair. Using either Bobby 3.1.1 or Bobby WW thus seemed to promise slightly more consistency. Second, for unknown reasons, Bobby WW resulted in frequent crashes of the author’s computer. Third, unlike Bobby 3.2 and Bobby WW, Bobby 3.1.1 provides a total count of the instances of Priority 1 detected errors, broken down by error types, in the summary report. The summary report in the two later Bobby versions does not provide this information.Collectingitwiththeseversionsisexcruciatinglytime-consuming;itwould involve looking at the individual page reports and then adding the figures provided 164 Schmetzke therein. As already mentioned earlier, Web pages for which no major (“Priority 1”) error is reported by Bobby’s automated checking function will be referred to within the context of this article as having received “Bobby approval.” Strictly speaking, this usage of the term is incorrect. Full Bobby approval, which is equivalent to Conformance Level A with the W3C-WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999), would also require a “manual” evaluation of those Priority 1 items that Bobby cannot automatically check. The exclusive use of Bobby’s automated function for evaluative purposes is also problematic for other reasons. Bobby is unable to check for the accessibility of script (such as Javascript) or script-generated content. Some features can only be partially checked with Bobby. When encountering images, for example, Bobby will not report an error as long as some alternative text is provided—no matter how meaningless or nondescriptive this text may be. Thus, for various reasons, reliance on Bobby’s automatic checking facility alone is prone to produce some falsely positive (error-free) findings. In addition to falsely-positive results, Bobby, on occasion, also produces falsely-negative results (reported errors where none exist), as this author found out during earlier studies. For example, pages that, at the very beginning, provide a “text-only version” link may not pass Bobby’s muster. Bobby simply checks the graphics versions for violation of accessible design principles. If it discovers a violation, Bobby considers this page to be inaccessible, regardless of how perfectly accessible the text-only version may be. In order to eliminate this particular type of false result, each home page was checked for a “text-only” version. Where a link to a text-only version was provided close to the top of the graphical home page version, the text-only home page was used as the starting point for the Bobby test. In cases where the text-only home page contained a link back to the graphical home page, the test results reported by Bobby were adjusted so that they would not reflect the latter’s accessibility errors. Another problematic feature of Bobby is its inability to distinguish between degrees of impact between different manifestations of the same error. For example, a bullet icon without alternative text registers as equal in status (i.e., as being a “Priority 1” error) to that of an image (also without the ALT tag) that is packed with crucial information. Similarly, Bobby may classify different types of accessibility errors as equal in severity, even if the barriers they constitute differ to a significant degree. For example, the lack of alternative text associated with a purely decorative image registers as an error equal in need of correction to the lack of frame labels in multiframe pages. Despite its shortcomings, Bobby is a good evaluation tool in studies like this, where the accessibility of hundreds or thousands of individual Web pages needs to Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 165 be evaluated, and a rough measure of accessibility suffices. In fact, all but three of the accessibility studies listed in the previous section relied exclusively on Bobby’s automatically generated data. Two small-scale investigations, the study of the departmental home pages on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus (n = 101) and the Craven’s study of library home pages (n = 103), employed Bobby’s automated checking capability as well as some degree of manual assessment (human judgment); and one study, by Ormes and Peacock, used WebWatch, not Bobby, to evaluate accessibility. Statistical Methods Because the goal of this study is primarily to gauge certain aspects of Web accessibility at the campuses with ALA-accredited library schools (all of which are included in this study), only methods of descriptive statistics are employed. (Methods of inferential statistics would be inappropriate, because no sampling is involved.) Specifically, the following statistical measures are provided: average percentage of Bobby-approved Web pages per data set (library sites—all; library sites—recently redesigned; library sites—not recently redesigned; SLIS sites—all; SLIS sites—recently redesigned; SLIS sites—not recently redesigned); range of the percentages in each set; relative frequency of specific accessibility errors; Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for the association between SLIS ranking and SLIS Web site accessibility as well as between SLIS ranking and changes in SLIS Web site accessibility; and Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficients for the relationship between the following variables: SLIS Web site accessibility and library Web site accessibility, SLIS Web site accessibility (2000) and SLIS Web accessibility (2002), and library Web accessibility (2000) and library Web accessibility (2002). Percentages and correlation coefficients were calculated with the help of a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2000) and the respective functions provided therein. Average Web site accessibility for the various data sets was calculated by first computing the percentage of Bobby-approved pages for each individual Web site within the set and then taking the mean of these percentage figures. RESULTS United States Including Puerto Rico It was found that 51% of the library home pages and 31% of the SLIS home pages are Bobby-approved. The percentages pertaining to the accessibility of Web sites (home pages plus pertinent pages linked to them) show a similar picture. The percentage of Bobby-approved pages per Web site averages 47% for libraries and 166 Schmetzke 33% for schools of library and information science. For both categories, there is much variation among sites. The standard deviation for the library data is 37 and that for the SLIS data is 38. As Table 1 reveals, site accessibility (in terms of percentage of Bobby-approved pages) ranges from 0 to 100% within both categories. On the 49 campuses, four library and three SLIS Web sites are 100% accessible. Thirteen library sites, in contrast to ten SLIS sites, have pages of which at least 80% were accessible. It is on the low end where the difference in accessibility between the two sets becomes striking. At five library sites (some 10%) and at 16 SLIS sites (just about one third of the studied sites), all the pages contain at least one Bobbydetected major accessibility barrier. Twenty of the library sites, compared to 27 of the SLIS sites, have an accessibility score of 20% or less. With a Pearson product– moment correlation coefficient of .06, there is essentially no relationship between library and SLIS site accessibility. Table 2 breaks the accessibility percentages for library and SLIS Web sites into a number of sets and subsets. The first division occurs between campuses with top-ranked library schools (those included in the U.S. News & World Report’s 1999 guide) and campuses with bottom-ranked library schools (those that were left out). For the sake of simplicity, these sites will be referred to in the following as “topranked” and “bottom-ranked” sites, respectively. Accessibility data for top-ranked sites are then further broken down into two subsets. One subset for sites at which the home page has undergone a major redesign during the past two years, and another subset for sites at which such major redesign, as judged by this author, has not occurred. (A few sites are not included in either set because of missing information about their former design.) A comparison between top-ranked and bottom-ranked library schools reveals some interesting differences. The percentage of Bobby-approved home pages within the top-ranked set is far higher than the corresponding percentage within the bottom-ranked set. While only 32% of the library schools and 24% of the libraries in the bottom-ranked set have accessible home pages, 71% of the former and 38% of the latter are Bobby-approved. This discrepancy is weakened, or even reversed, when the next layer of linked pages is included in the analysis. For library sites, the mean percentage of accessible Web pages increases mildly from 41 to 53% as one moves from the bottom-ranked to the top-ranked set; for SLIS sites, this figure decreases from 37 to 30%. Similar connections between rank and Web site accessibility are also found in the correlations between rank and accessibility percentages within the high-ranking sites. The Spearman rank-order coefficient is -.43 for library sites and .22 for SLIS sites. (Note that a negative correlation means that the top-ranked sites tend to be more accessible.) A more differentiating look at the data from top-ranked sites brings to light another interesting discrepancy. Libraries with recently redesigned home pages Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 167 Table 1: SLIS ranks as well as 2000 and 2002 percentages of Bobby-approved SLIS and library pages, by university University Rank of "Library Schools" (SLIS) acc. to U.S.News 1999 Bobby-approved SLIS pages (%) (%) 2000 2002 Bobby-approved library pages (%) (%) 2000 2002 UNITED STATES, INCL. PUERTO RICO University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaigne University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Syracuse University (NY) University of Michigan-Ann Arbor University of Pittsburgh Indiana University Rutgers State University-New Brunswick University of Wisconsin-Madison Drexel University (PA) University of California-Los Angeles University of Texas-Austin Florida State University Simmons College (MA) University of Maryland-College Park SUNY-Albany University of North Texas University of South Carolina-Columbia SUNY-Buffalo University of Washington Kent State University (OH) Texas Woman's University University of Tennessee-Knoxville University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Wayne State University (MI) University of Alabama University of Arizona Catholic University of America Clarion University of Pennsylvania Clark Atlanta University Dominican University Emporia State University University of Hawai University of Iowa University of Kentucky Long Island University Louisiana State University University of Missouri-Columbia North Carolina Central University University of North Carolina-Greensboro University of Oklahoma Pratt Institute Universidad de Puerto Rico Queens College (CUNY) University of Rhode Island San Jose State University University of South Florida Southern Connecticut State University University of Southern Mississippi St. John's University 1 1 3 3 3 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 12 14 15 15 15 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 20 0 6 13 29 60 0 0 8 13 100 0 19 11 83 0 0 9 39 94 29 20 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 4 7 6 0 6 95 8 83 0 95 0 0 95 20 5 50 7 10 91 100 29 0 0 63 0 69 61 0 0 92 10 71 0 0 67 7 86 30 24 0 0 42 100 0 95 100 0 7 77 100 33 76 3 100 82 73 100 94 61 62 0 67 100 37 59 10 73 32 22 80 72 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 64 100 54 76 95 75 92 83 73 5 13 88 14 17 94 13 9 6 89 78 73 8 33 13 0 75 0 0 18 40 17 100 6 63 5 71 55 100 86 97 0 29 8 94 29 15 100 28 0 CANADA University of Alberta University of British Columbia Dalhousie University McGill University Université de Montréal University of Toronto University of Western Ontario n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 18 7 0 58 89 78 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 65 40 64 0 94 6 tend to have less accessible Web pages than libraries with home pages that have not undergone major changes. This holds true not only for the accessibility of the home pages, but also for the larger set of pages that constitute the top layer of the Web sites studied. Only 55% of the home pages that had been redesigned, in contrast to 90% of those that had not, received Bobby-approval. The comparable figures for the larger set of pages are 24 and 81%, respectively. The puzzle associated with these figures is further compounded by the fact that the observed discrepancy does not extend to the SLIS data. There, for both the home pages and 168 Schmetzke Table 2: Accessibility of home pages (percentage) and web sites (mean percentage) for library and SLIS sites, by country, rank and redesign status (2000 and 2002 data) Approved homepages percentage Web Page Data Sets Approved web pages (HPs plus one link-layer down) percentage (mean) 2000 2002 2000 2002 All library sites Top-ranked library sites (N=24) Top-ranked library sites (changed HP) (N=11) Top-ranked library sites (unchanged HP) (N=10) Bottom-ranked library sites (N=25) n/a 71 64 80 n/a 51 71 55 90 32 n/a 59 47 68 n/a 47 53 24 81 41 All SLIS sites Top-ranked SLIS sites (N=24) Top-ranked SLIS sites (changed HP) (N=13) Top-ranked SLIS sites (unchanged HP) (N=8) Bottom-ranked SLIS sites (N=25) n/a 38 31 50 n/a 31 38 46 38 24 n/a 23 24 31 n/a 33 30 35 28 37 n/a n/a 43 14 n/a n/a 53 36 US incl. Puerto Rico (N=49) Canada (N=7) All library sites All SLIS sites the larger set (home pages plus linked pages), the difference between subsets with redesigned home pages and those with largely unchanged home pages is both mild and reversed. 46% of the home pages that had been redesigned, in contrast to 38% of those that had not, received Bobby-approval. The comparable figures for the larger set of pages (home pages plus linked pages) are 35 and 28%, respectively. The above figures are based on the data collected in February 2002. For about half of the sites, those that were top-ranked by U.S. News & World Report, comparable data collected in April 2000 are available (Schmetzke, 2001a). How do the current figures compare to those collected almost two years earlier? When not broken down by redesign status, the percentages of accessible pages for both the library and the SLIS sites indicate little change over the past two years. In fact, the percentages of accessible home pages show no change at all. While the majority of library home pages (71%) remain accessible, only 38% of SLIS home pages continue to receive Bobby approval. For the larger set (home pages plus linked pages), the percentage of accessible pages decreased slightly for library Web sites (from 59 to 53%), while that for SLIS Web sites showed a mild increase (from 23 to 30%). As indicated earlier, the 2002 data reveal a moderate correlation between Web site accessibility and site rank for libraries (r = -.43), as well as a milder and reversed correlation between these variables for library schools (r = .22). With corresponding Spearman rank-order coefficients of -.30 (libraries) Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 169 and .23 (library schools), the correlations between rank and accessibility based on the 2000 data differ little from those based on the 2002 data. Essentially, no correlation was found between rank and change in Web site accessibility (p = .04). One must be careful not to infer from the relative stability of the average accessibility figures reported above that the accessibility of individual Web sites has been equally stable. In fact, for both library and SLIS sites, the correlation between the 2000 and 2002 accessibility data is—with a Pearson product–moment coefficient of .30 and .26, respectively— rather low. Despite similar averages, there has been considerable fluctuation in Web accessibility among individual sites over the past two years—a conclusion easily confirmed by a brief glance at Table 1. While some institutions, such as the School of Information Studies at Florida State University and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville Libraries, implemented changes that drastically decreased their Web site accessibility, other institutions, such as the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Pittsburgh Library System, have gained tremendous ground. Why has accessibility improved on some sites, while it has decreased on others? While the data do not offer an explanation, they suggest one factor that is, in some fashion, associated with changes in Web site accessibility: a Web site’s redesign status. Let us take a look at the library data first. The difference in accessibility between library sites with and without major recent redesign reported for the 2002 data also existed in 2000. However, the magnitude of this difference has changed. To recall, among library sites, the percentage of accessible pages was much higher for those sites at which the home page had not undergone a redesign since April 2000 (81% as compared to 24%). This difference of 57 percentage points was less drastic in 2000, when it amounted to only 21 percentage points (68% as compared to 47%). The above data can also be presented in a slightly different way. Library sites at which the home page has been redesigned not only already had, on the average, a comparatively low accessibility (47%) in 2000 (before the redesign), but also this already low average accessibility is now (after the redesign) lower (24%). In contrast, the library sites at which the home page remained largely unchanged started out with a comparatively high average accessibility (68%), which now, two years later, is even higher (81%). Just as the 2002 SLIS data, when broken down by home page design status (redesigned vs. largely unchanged), show a difference both much smaller and reversed in direction relative to that of the library data, so does the 2000–2002 SLIS data comparison present a picture quite different from that pertaining to changes in library Web accessibility. While the accessibility of redesigned home pages has increased from 31 to 46%, the accessibility of largely unchanged home pages has decreased from 50 to 38%. For the larger set of Web pages (home pages 170 Schmetzke plus linked pages) the trend has been similar: Sites at which the home page underwent a major redesign have slightly improved in terms of accessibility (from 24 to 35%), while accessibility at sites that remained largely unchanged has shown a (negligible) 3% decrease (from 31 to 28%). Canada The accessibility data collected for seven Canadian university libraries and library schools show similar averages as those pertaining to institutions in the United States. For home pages and the larger set of pages (home pages and pertinent pages linked to them), the average percentage of accessible pages is significantly higher at libraries (43 and 53%, respectively) than at library schools (14 and 36%, respectively). Just as the U.S. data, the Canadian data spread over a wide range. Error Analysis (Canadian and U.S. Data) As Table 3 shows, the vast majority of accessibility errors detected by the automated Bobby checker fall into two categories: images without alternative text and image map hot spots without alternative text. Errors in the former category occur most frequently (close to 83% in the combined set of examined SLIS and library Web pages). About each sixth error detected by Bobby (about 16%) in the combined set falls into the latter category. Libraries have, on the average, a somewhat higher proportion (22%) of image map hot spots with missing alternative text. Similar percentages, with a slightly higher proportion of errors pertaining to missing alternative text for image map hot spots (21% in the combined set), were revealed by the 2000 data. Missing frame titles constituted 1% of the errors in 2000, as compared to .16% in 2002. It is this author’s impression that this decline has less to do with more accessible frame arrangements than with a general decline in the use of frames. DISCUSSION Current State and Recent Trend at Libraries Schmetzke (2001a), in his previous study of Web accessibility at library schools and libraries, found that, on the average, 59% of library Web pages were Bobby approved. The findings in this follow-up study are slightly lower. Accessibility for the same set of 24 library Web sites had decreased to 53%. For the larger set of 49 library Web sites (United States), 47% of the pages were accessible. It is unclear why Web accessibility has decreased mildly. Compared to other studies involving academic libraries (Blake, 2000; Lilly & VanFleet, 1999; Schmetzke, 2000, 2001b; Yu, in press), which yielded accessibility percentages in the high 30s Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 171 Table 3: Relative frequency of errors by type and by site category Error type Images without alternative text Image map hot-spots without alternative text Frame without title Page not readable or usable without frames No redundant text link for server-side image-map hot-spot Image-type button in form without alternative text Applet without alternative text Library Schools Libraries Combined % % % 88.93 75.92 82.75 10.15 22.28 15.91 0.03 0.30 0.16 0.18 0.56 0.36 0.70 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 and low 40s, this study finds accessibility of the library Web sites to be still relatively high. However, the observed decline opposes the trend reflected in the only other longitudinal data available for library sites: Schmetzke’s data in his 1999, 2000 and 2001 studies of Wisconsin campus libraries—data suggesting the possibility that Web accessibility at libraries may be on the increase (from 31 to 40 to 43%). There may be two explanations for the comparatively high accessibility of library Web pages reflected in the 2000 and 2002 data. It could be sheer coincidence that the campuses included happen to be more accessible than the national average. Since the library sites were selected because their campuses offer ALA-accredited programs in library science, they do not constitute a random sample from which some more general conclusions about campus libraries nationwide could be drawn. Alternatively, it may be that the particular nature of the libraries makes a decisive difference. The libraries included in this study tend to serve rather large campuses with a significant population of graduate students and researchers. Larger campuses may be able to marshal more resources toward accessible design. Webmasters may receive systematic training in universal Web design, and special staff may be available to facilitate a more stringent implementation of accessible Web policies. Current State and Recent Trend at Library Schools By far the biggest surprise found by Schmetzke (2001a) was the low accessibility of the 24 top-ranking SLIS Web sites. Only 23% of the Web sites studied were approved by Bobby. With only a slight increase in accessibility (to 30%), SLIS Web sites are still not paradigms of virtue as far as accessibility is concerned. It is reasonable to assume that such common disregard for accessible Web design reflects not only the attitude of Web designers, but also that of the SLIS staff and faculty in general, who hire the designers and give them directions. One can thus further assume that schools of library and information science are unlikely to teach principles of accessible Web design. To the extent that prospective 172 Schmetzke librarians learn about Web page design in their home (SLIS) departments, as this author did a few years ago, they are not likely to gain even an inkling of awareness that design matters for people with disabilities—on the Web not less than in the physical environment. At first sight, the above conclusion appears to contradict the survey findings reported by Walling (2002). Her survey, conducted in 2000, which was mailed to the directors or deans of all ALA-accredited institutions, included the following question: “Does your school’s master program include instruction about adaptive technologies (AT)? (For example, accessible catalogs and accessible Web Pages)?” Of the 34 respondents, 73% indicated that their programs included this kind of instruction. Does the above figure not suggest that most SLIS instructors are aware of the need for accessible Web design? Not necessarily, for the following reasons: (1) One drawback of mail surveys is that their results only reflect the responses of those who chose to participate in it. Only 34 of the 55 schools contacted responded to Walling’s survey. As a self-selected group, the responding library schools are likely to have been more sensitive to the needs of individuals with disabilities than the nonresponding institutions. (2) As Walling points out, when discussing the limitations of her study, it is unclear whether the persons most familiar with the curriculum where the ones answering the questions. (3) Walling uses an implied definition of adaptive technology that may have been somewhat confusing. Adaptive technology is typically associated with special hardware and software used by people with disabilities (see, for example, Lazzaro, 2001, p. xii; Adaptive devices, 2000, p. 36). The concept of accessible (universal) design, however, emphasizes a design that takes into account the wide variation among people, so that the need for adaptive devices is kept at a minimum. Thus, despite the fact that Walling specified “accessible catalogs” and “accessible Web Pages” as examples of “adaptive technologies,” it is likely that the schools’ responses were influenced by the prevailing association of adaptive technologies with special equipment—an influence that may have been exacerbated by a poor understanding of the concept of accessible design as it applies to online resources. (4) Even if 73% of the responding schools provide some instruction about accessible design, it does not follow that all students in the program would necessarily be exposed to the idea. Only 38% of the respondents indicated that adaptive technologies are covered, to some extent, in the required part of the curriculum. As Walling points out, only at 38% of the responding schools can all graduates be expected to have received instruction about adaptive technologies, and this finding is more significant than the 73% figure, Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 173 and most discouraging (personal communication, March 2, 2002). The low Web accessibility at our nation’s leading schools of library and information science has also another consequence. Students with print disabilities have a lower chance of successfully passing through SLIS programs. This does not only constitute sheer discrimination against the individuals involved, it also affects the future representation of people with disabilities in the library profession. As things stand now, library schools do not enjoy the reputation of having much of a diverse student population. If schools of library and information science continue to put more and more information that is crucial to the success of students on inaccessibly designed Web pages, the library profession will become even less diverse and inclusive. This, in turn, will distract from libraries becoming the type of places in which sensitivity to people with disabilities is likely to flourish. Correlation Between Library and SLIS Web Site Accessibility The data show that there is no significant correlation between library and SLIS Web site accessibility. There are several possible explanations for this: (1) SLIS graduates are likely to apply for positions all over the nation, so there is not much of a human-resources flow from the library school to the library on a given campus. (2) As libraries began to put up their own Web sites in the mid-1990s, more technologically adept staff members jumped at the chance to get involved, and they may have been holding on to this responsibility ever since. Recent SLIS graduates may thus not have become much involved in the creation of libraries’ Web pages. A recent library survey, which reveals that at 57% of the responding institutions, Web site responsibility had not changed hands since site creation, gives some credibility to this explanation (Traw, 2000). (3) Many library sites include elements (such as Javascript) that exceed the skill level of most SLIS graduates, even if they took a class in Web design. Libraries may therefore prefer to hire Web designers who received their training elsewhere. (4) Unlike suggested above, few schools of library and information science teach Web design. Whatever knowledge SLIS graduates may have about Web design, they picked it up elsewhere. The data collected in this study do not permit ruling out one or the other possible explanation. The issue certainly raises some interesting questions for future research: Who designs Web pages at campus libraries? Where did the designers receive their training? What do they know about accessible design principles? And what directions (supervisor’s instruction, library policies or job description) are they given for their work? This author knows of only one study that has touched upon these type of questions. In a survey involving British libraries, 80% of the 174 Schmetzke responding library Web designers indicated that they had received some kind of Web design training, but only 20% of the respondents stated that their training had covered accessibility issues (Craven, 2000). Rank-Related Differences The rather striking tendency for library and SLIS home pages on campuses with top-ranking library schools to be more accessible is a bit of a puzzle, in light of the finding that the same does not hold for the larger Web sites (home pages plus the first layer of linked pages), where this tendency is either considerably weaker (libraries) or reversed (SLIS). Without further investigation, one can only speculate about the reasons for this apparent contradiction: (1) The fact that top-ranking sites tend to have more accessible home pages may be related to institutional size. The institutions with the more highly ranked library schools tend to be larger and are thus likely to have more resources available. To the extent that awareness about accessibility exists, larger institutions will probably find it easier to marshal expertise and resources toward the creation of more accessible Web sites. (2) The home page, which is undoubtedly the most important page of any Web site, is likely to get the most attention. Secondary pages may be less likely to receive as much scrutiny as the main gateway to the site. Differences Related to Home-Page Design Status The breakdown of some of the data by design status—sites with home pages that underwent a major redesign since the 2000 data had been collected and sites that remained largely unchanged—makes it possible to address the following question: Where major changes have taken place, did the designers take advantage of this occasion to create a more accessible Web site? For library sites, the answer to this question clearly points in a disappointing direction. On the average, accessibility after redesign decreased, for home pages as well as the pages linked to them. It appears that most designers of library Web pages did not take accessibility into account, or, if they did, gave it such low priority that it got lost in the shuffle. Interestingly, largely unchanged library sites had, on the average, already relatively high accessibility in 2000, and the relatively minor changes made to the pages improved accessibility even further. This phenomenon is difficult to explain; the following attempts are conjecture at best: (1) Libraries that had put forth particular efforts to create a user-friendly (accessible) site may not have seen much need for change once that site was in place. The few changes made—some tweaking here and there—tended to Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 175 improve further what already was a very usable system. In contrast, libraries who had invested less time and effort into a particular design may have been quicker to abandon, and to replace, what they had previously put up—be it, perhaps, because of the need to accommodate the ever-increasing amount of electronic resources or in response to the whim of new staff. (2) This is a variation to the above hypothetical explanation. By 2000, when the initial data were collected, some libraries were already aware that accessibility is not only a concern in the physical environment but also an issue in the virtual realm. Libraries who took this issue seriously may have addressed it early on. These may have been libraries which, overall, spent more effort and resources on the development of their Web sites, and for which there was less need later on to make drastic changes to their Web design. For the SLIS data, the breakdown by design status provides a mildly optimistic picture. Average accessibility of redesigned SLIS sites (both home pages and wider Web site pages) is not only slightly higher than that of largely unchanged sites, it also has increased slightly since 2000. In contrast, accessibility percentages for largely unchanged SLIS sites have dropped (home pages) or stagnated (larger set of Web sites). Why do redesigned SLIS Web sites, in contrast to library Web sites, show an improvement in accessibility? Why does it appear that at least some library schools took advantage of the general redesign of their Web site and made their pages more accessible? The following is but a tentative answer. As the data indicate, Web pages at library schools have been less accessible than those at libraries. This lag was particularly striking two years ago, and as Schmetzke (2001a) suggested, it is likely to reflect a lack of awareness among the library school faculty. Accessible Web design has become a topic that is now well covered in the library literature; it may well be that, over the past two years, the need for accessible design has gradually been catching the attention of SLIS instructors and administrators. Anecdotal evidence—in form of e-mails from SLIS-affiliated individuals to this author— shows that at least some library schools have noticed the author’s spring 2000 data, which were presented at conferences, placed on the Web shortly after their collection and published in Library Hi Tech in April 2001. It is conceivable that when a library school now decides to redesign its Web page site, accessibility is more likely than in the past to be on the radar screen, even if only in the form of a mere blip. If the above attempt to explain the slight increase in Web accessibility at library schools has any merit, why has not the same happened at libraries? Larger size and lack of competition may be the reasons. Library systems are huge compared to individual library schools. When a few individuals at large university libraries or library systems become aware of the need to make online resources accessible, the 176 Schmetzke impact may be very small. In library schools, with some ten to 20 faculty members and half-a-dozen administrative staff, an impact might be felt when only one individual recognizes the importance of online accessibility. In addition to size, the competition among graduate schools may be a contributing factor. Even if a library school was not particularly concerned about whether or not people with print disabilities have access to its Web site, it is probably sensitive about its reputation. A lowly ranked Web site in a publicized comparison may catch a SLIS director’s attention, and this may have some impact on who gets hired as Web designers and on the directions they receive. Error Analysis There is little difference between the 2000 and 2002 data. No matter which set of data (library, SLIS, library and SLIS combined) the error analysis reveals similar results. Over 98% of the barriers found in Web pages results from designers’ neglect to provide alternative text for images or image map hot spots. This finding is relevant, because these two types of errors are easily fixed. It certainly would not require a major redesign of the Web page, or an advanced skill level in html, to insert the alternative text. While the results of the error analysis in this study confirm the tendency reported by Flowers, Bray and Algozzine (1999) as well as by Lilly and Van Fleet (1999), the latter findings are not quite as high. Most likely, the reason for this lies in the way errors are counted. The other researchers counted the pages on which certain types of errors occurred, whereas this author counted the number of times a certain error occurred. If, for example, a certain error occurred 30 times on the same page, Lilly and Van Fleet would state that one page was affected by this error, whereas this author would record that it occurred 30 times. CONCLUSION The conclusions to be drawn from the current accessibility data are essentially not different from those reached by Schmetzke (2001a), which were based on data from 2000. Many libraries have still not taken proper action to ensure that their Web pages are freely accessible to people with print disabilities. Unawareness of the issue, time constraints and general techno-stress may be the reasons for this neglect. Unfortunately, North American library schools still do not appear to endow the next generation of librarians with the sensitivity and skills that would give hope for better times to come. Assuming that the dismal accessibility record of library schools’ own Web sites reflects a lack of awareness among their faculty, their graduates are not likely to pay much attention to accessibility issues either. Perhaps, as the California example suggests, it will take further legal action—complaints to the Office for Civil Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 177 Rights and suits of the kind filed by the National Federation of the Blind against AOL in 1999—to shake things up. If the current data give any reason for hope, it is with regard to the fact that the SLIS sites that have undergone a major makeover (as judged by the changes made to their home pages) have, on the average, become more accessible. Unfortunately, this improvement has been rather mild, and the question needs to be asked what could be done to encourage more drastic changes in the future. One possible action to be taken pertains to the dissemination of the latest accessibility data. While the findings of the previous study were spread through different public venues—journal publication, Web publication and conference presentations—and had reached some library school faculty, no additional effort was undertaken to contact the institutions included in the study and to ensure that at least their directors and Web masters were exposed to the results. Whether more direct contact is a factor that significantly influences Web site accessibility will be tested in connection with the next follow-up study planned for 2004. In addition to using public venues, this author will share, through personal e-mail, the new data with the deans or directors, as well as the Web managers, at each of the 56 libraries and library schools included in this study. If the 2004 data will show no or little improvement, lack of exposure to pertinent information will probably not be the reason. Educational Resources Where can people who wish to make their Web pages accessible turn for help? While, as pointed out earlier, most problems are easily fixed, it still takes some skill to do so. Fortunately, a number of resources are available. Most authoritative, but probably not easy to digest for the novice, are the documents issued by the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), particularly this group’s Curriculum for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (2000b). Perhaps a better choice, especially for the novice, would be Michael Paciello’s (2000) book Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. This comprehensive volume discusses philosophical and legal issues and provides practical guidance in accessible Web design. For those who prefer the interactive mode of a structured course, this author highly recommends the EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information) online workshop “Beginner Barrier-free Web Design,” held by Dick Banks and Norm Coombs six times per year. Their four-week workshop consists of ten lessons that prepare participants “to create Web pages that are visually appealing and still permit full access by users with disabilities.”3 Other online courses on the subject are offered by Kynn and Liz Bartlett of the HTML Writers Guild,4 Jon Gunderson at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign5 and Jim Thatcher at the Information Technology Technical and Training Assistance Center.6 WebAble! Solutions also offers a series of different workshops and seminars on emerging technologies and 178 Schmetzke accessible design.7 Those interested in earning university credits may consider Paul Bohman’s (WebAIM) semester-based credit course entitled “Inclusive Web Design—Disability, Usability and Accessibility.”8 EASI, in partnership with the University of Southern Maine, offers eight online courses in connection with its “accessible information technology” certificate program.9 For those who have less time to their avail, or who prefer to acquire knowledge in the area on their own, WebAIM provides a quick-tip page, a longer Web-based tutorial as well as links to various other tutorial-type resources.10 Finally, as indicated in the literature review section, a number of published articles provide practical tips on accessible Web design (e.g., Coombs, 2000). A multitude of further resources on the subject can be accessed through any of the following portals: Trace Research & Development Center,11 NYISE Blindness Resource Center,12 Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI)13 and the author’s own resource page on Accessible Webpage Design.14 Direction for Future Research Most of the library Web site accessibility studies reported earlier merely looked at home pages. A few studies, including this author’s, also investigated the next layer of linked pages. While all these investigations are important—they provide a snapshot of the current situation, indicate changes that are taking place (if periodically repeated), may generate awareness and might shake one or the other institution into action—they only reveal part of the overall picture of a fully accessible library Web site. True, it is important to find out whether the initial pages, which constitute the pathways to the major library resources, are free of barriers; but it is at least equally important to investigate the accessibility of the major resources: library catalogs, electronic indexes, full-text databases, online tutorials, e-books, virtual reference services and electronic reserve systems. A first step in this direction has been taken. As already mentioned in the literature review, Library Hi Tech (2002) is coming out with two special-theme issues that address the wider scope of online accessibility (Vol. 20, No. 2 and Vol. 20, No.4). Hopefully, these issues will stimulate further evaluative research in this area, help librarians to make informed procurement decisions and provide information that may encourage vendors to develop truly inclusive products. Laudable as the efforts behind these special-theme issues undoubtedly are— to some extent, they are likely to serve the intended purpose—they constitute just a first step. Ultimately, a more elaborate system to monitor and encourage accessibility of online library resources needs to be put in place—a system that generates a continuous flow of up-to-date information. Electronic resources are moving targets. New versions come out faster than evaluative research can be disseminated through traditional venues (journals and books). A few librarians, Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 179 when faced with yet another product to consider for purchase, may get inspired by the published research and copy its methodology to conduct their own accessibility evaluations. However, most librarians will not have the time or expertise to do so. What is needed is the equivalent of a consumer-report-type of information source on new products. This may take the form of an independent consumer research organization, or it may take the form of loosely coordinated groups of librarians— with each group focusing on one particular type of product. It is the latter scheme that this author is currently considering. Tentatively dubbed “Project ADOPT-IT,” this scheme could take the following shape: Small groups of librarians are formed of which each adopts a particular product category (electronic reserve, virtual reference, e-books, etc.). The task of each group is to evaluate the accessibility of products in the adopted category as they are brought to market and to share its findings through a clearinghouse created for this particular purpose. Libraries that consider purchasing a particular online information resource could check the ADOPT-IT clearinghouse, which may simply take the form of a Web site, for accessibility-related information. Project ADOPT-IT, as so many other ideas, may not work out for one or the other reason. But this should not keep supporters of inclusive information technology from exploring other, more viable approaches. As this study suggests, progress is slow at best. Over half of the library Web sites are still fraught with access problems, and judged by their own Web pages, library schools are slow to recognize the problem. Without continuous efforts to educate, to shape institutional policy, and to challenge vendors to make more accessible products, the Web is unlikely to take on the quality that its inventor, and current director of the World Wide Web Consortium, had in mind when he created it: “The power of the Web is its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.” (Burners-Lee, n.d.). ACKNOWLEDGMENT This contribution is an updated and expanded version of an article previously published in Library Hi Tech (Schmetzke, 2001a). It goes beyond its predecessor in that a larger set of institutions is included—all 56 ALA-accredited schools of library and information science, along with the libraries on these campuses. New accessibility data (collected in February 2002) are compared to those reported in the Library Hi Tech article (collected in April 2000). The literature review and the discussion of institutional accessibility policies have also been updated. The objectives of this chapter are identical to those in the 2001 article: promoting awareness about the importance of online accessibility, documenting the current state of Web accessibility at libraries and library schools and encouraging both 180 Schmetzke types of institutions to make their online resources accessible to all potential users. ENDNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 American National Standard for Buildings and Facilities—Providing Accessibility and Usability for Physically Handicapped People (ANSI A117.1 1961/1980/1986); Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design (MGRAD 1982); Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS 194); and ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG 1992). The online version of Bobby can be accessed from the CAST Web site at http://www.cast.org/bobby/. The for-purchase application version can be downloaded from the same site. http://www.rit.edu/~easi/workshops/easiWeb.htm. http://access.idyllmtn.com/d201/. http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/courses/. http://www.ittatc.org/training/Webcourse/. http://www.Webable.com/workshops.html. http://www.Webaim.org/courses/. http://easi.cc/workshop.htm. http://Webaim.org/tutorials/. http://trace.wisc.edu/world/Web/index.html. http://www.nyise.org/blind.htm. http://www.rit.edu/~easi/. http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/pub_resources.htm. REFERENCES Adaptive devices. (2000). Encyclopedia of Special Education (second edition), 1, 36. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Association of College and Research Libraries. Distance Learning Section. Guidelines Committee. (1998). Guidelines for distance learning library services. College & Research Libraries News, 59(9), 689–694. Association of College and Research Libraries. Distance Learning Section. Guidelines Committee. (2000). Guidelines for distance learning library services.College and Research Libraries News, 61(11), 1023–1029. Also retrievable from http:// www.ala.org/acrl/guides/distlrng.html. Accessed March 1, 2002. American Library Association. (2000). Directory of Institutions Offering Accredited Master’s Programs—Index. Retrieved February 28, 2002, from http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/progindx.html. Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 181 American Library Association. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies. (2001). Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy, January 16. Retrieved March 2, 2002, from http://www.ala.org/ ascla/access_policy.html. Americans with Disabilities Act. (1990). (1995). In ADA Handbook: Disability Discrimination: Statutes, Regulations and Related Materials. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. America’s Best Graduate Schools. (1999). U.S. News and World Report. Washington, DC. Also available: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/gradrank/gbinfos.htm. Accessed February 15, 2002. Anders, R. & Fechtner, D. (1992). Universal Design. Brooklyn, NY: Pratt Institute Department of Industrial Design and Pratt Center for Advanced Design Research (CADRE). Blake, S. (2000). Universal access, the ADA, and your library Web page. Arkansas Libraries, 57(1), 19–24. Branson, G. D. (1991). The Complete Guide to Barrier-Free Housing. Convenient Living for the Elderly and Physically Handicapped. White Hall, VA: Betterway Publications. Brittain, K. D. (1995). Persons with disabilities can and do surf the Net! Colorado Libraries, 21 (Fall), 17–19. Brown, P. (2000). Universal access to Web information. Illinois Libraries, 82(3), 160–166. Burgstahler, S., Comden, D., & Fraser, B. M. (1996). Universal Access: Electronic Resources in Libraries. Seattle, WA: DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) at the University of Washington. American Library Association (ALA). Burgstahler, S., Comden, D., & Fraser, B. M. (1997). Universal access: Designing and evaluating Web sites for accessibility. Choice, 34, 19-22. Burners-Lee, T. (no date). Quote retrieved March 5, 2002, from the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web site: http://www.w3.org/WAI/. Byerley, S. (2001). Usability testing and students with visual disabilities: Building electronic curb cuts into a library Web site. Colorado Libraries, 27(3), 22–24. California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office. (1999). Distance Education: Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities, August. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/dlguidelines/ final%20dl%20guidelines.htm. California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office. (2000). Guidelines for Producing Instructional and Other Printed Materials in Alternate Media for Persons with Disabilities, April. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:/ 182 Schmetzke /www.htctu.fhda.edu/amguidelines/am33000.htm. California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office. (2001). Memorandum: New Federal Regulations Implementing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Legal opinion M 01-17, June 11. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.occ.cccd.edu/~hightech/M_01-17.pdf. California State University, Office of General Counsel. (2001). Memorandum. RE: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, June 20. Retrieved March 3, 2000, from http://www.csus.edu/Web/accessibility/CSU_508_memo.htm. Carpenter, S. A. (1996). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodation in Ohio. College & Research Libraries, 57 November), 555–566. Casey, C. A. (1999). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equal opportunity Web sites. Information Technology and Libraries, 18(1), 22–25. CAST. (2002). Manual for On-Line Version. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http://www.cast.org/Bobby/index.cfm?i=428#app. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. (2000). Oversight Hearing on “The Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Private Internet Sites,” February 9. Retrieved March 1, 2002, from http://www.house.gov/judiciary/2.htm. Coombs, N. (2000). Enabling technologies. Untangling your Web. Library Hi Tech, 18(1), 93–96. Coonin, B. (2001). Enabling scientists: Serving sci-tech library users with disabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 32 (Fall). Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/01-fall/article1.html. Craven, J. (2000). Electronic access for all: Awareness in creating accessible Web sites for the university library. Disability and Information Systems in Higher Education (DISinHE). Retrieved March 1, 2002, from http:// www.disinhe.ac.uk/library/article.asp?id=34. Cunningham, C. & Coombs, N. (1997). Information Access and Adaptive Technology. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press. Deines-Jones, C. (1996). Access to library Internet services for patrons with disabilities: Pragmatic considerations for developers. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 61–62. Dixon, J. M. (1996). Leveling the road ahead: Guidelines for the creation of WWW pages accessible to blind and visually handicapped users. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 65–68. Dixon, J. M. (1999). Creating a Web for all: Access for blind and visually impaired users. In McNulty, T. (Ed.), Accessible Libraries on Campus: A Practical Guide for the Creation of Disability-Friendly Libraries, 135–140. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association. Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 183 Duchateau, S., Archambault, D., & Burger, D. (1999). The accessibility of the World Wide Web for visually impaired people. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference for the Advancement of Assistive Technology (Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the New Millennium), Düsseldorf, Germany. November 1–4. Retrieved February 27, from http:// www.snv.jussieu.fr/inova/publi/aaateacces.htm. Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., & Barile, M. (2001). Computer and Information Technologies: Resources for the Postsecondary Education of Students with Disabilities. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from Adaptech, Dawson College: http://www.adaptech.org/pubs/olt01. Flowers, C. P., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R. F. (1999). Accessibility of special education program home pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 21–26. Foster, A. (2001). Making Web sites work for people with disabilities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (21), A30, February 2. Also available under the following title “Colleges focus on making Web sites work for people with disabilities” at http://chronicle.com/free/2001/01/2001012601t.htm. Accessed January 17, 2002. Fraser, B. M., Comden, D., & Burgstahler, S. (1998). Including users with disabilities: Designing library Web sites for accessibility. Choice, 35, 35–37. Gadbow, N. F. & Du Bois, D. A. (1998). Adult Learners with Special Needs: Strategies and Resources for Postsecondary Education and Workplace Training. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Garlock, K. L. & Piontek, S. (1996). Building the service-based library Web site. A step-by-step guide to design and options. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Garlock, K. L. & Piontek, S. (1999). Designing Web Interfaces to Library Services and Resources. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Guthrie, S. A. (2000). Making the World Wide Web accessible to all students. Journal of Mass Communication Educator, 55(1), 14–23. Hansen, M. B. (1999). Designing Web pages for people with disabilities. The Unabashed Librarian, (111), 19. Hennen Jr., T. J. (1999). Great American public libraries: HAPLR ratings, round two. American Libraries, 30 (September), 64–68. Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 1, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999187.pdf. Jackson, T. A. (1999). Web Page Design: A Study of Three Genres. Unpub- 184 Schmetzke lished Master’s thesis. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Jackson-Sanborn, E., Odess-Harnish, K., & Warren, N. (2001). Web Accessibility: A Study of ADA Compliance. Technical Reports. TR-2001-05, May 30. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from the School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina Web site: http://ils.unc.edu/ils/ research/reports/accessibility.pdf. Jobe, M. M. (1999). Guidelines on Web accessibility for the disabled. Colorado Libraries, 25(3), 45–46. Johnson, A. & Ruppert, S. (2002). Known Campus Statements on Web Accessibility, November 26. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Web Accessibility Guidelines and Resources Web site: http://www.uwosh.edu/programs/accessibility/papers/campuses.htm. Kautzman, A.M. (1998). Virtuous, virtual access: Making Web pages accessible to people with disabilities. Searcher, 6(6), 42–49. Kester, D. (1999). Measuring the sight of your Web site. North Carolina Libraries, 57(3), 114–117. Kinder, S. (2001). Web page accessibility for users with disabilities. Kentucky Libraries, 65(4), 21–25. Kovacs, D. & Kovacs, M. (1997). The Cybrarian Guide to Developing Successful Internet Programs and Services. New York: Neal Schuhman. Lazzaro, J. J. (1993). Adaptive Technologies for Learning and Work Environments. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Lazzaro, J. J. (2001). Adaptive Technologies for Learning and Work Environments (second edition). Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Learning Technology and Distance Education. (2000). Summary Results of the Accessibility Analysis of UW-Madison Department Websites. Retrieved February 17, 2002, from Do-IT, University of Wisconsin-Madison: http:// wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/ltde/access/dept-summary.htm. Lebovich, W. L. (1993). Design for Dignity. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lescher, J. F. (2000). Designing Web sites for the blind. EContent, 23(2), 14–23. Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An Institutional Perspective on Students With Disabilities in Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 1, 2002, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999046.pdf. Lilly, E. B. & Van Fleet, C. (1999). Wired but not connected: Accessibility of academic library home pages. The Reference Librarian, No. 67/68, 5–28. Lilly, E. B. & Van Fleet, C. (2000). Measuring the accessibility of public library home pages. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40(2), 156–163. Mace, N. (1996). Screen readers: Technology opens the way to the workplace for Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 185 people with vision impairments. Mainstream, 20(5), 32–33. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2000). MIT Disabilities Resources: Universal Design and Web Accessibility. Received March 3, 2002, from http://Web.mit.edu/ada/waccess.html#policy. Mates, B. T. (2000). Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible to All. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Mates, B. T. (2001). Accessibility guidelines for electronic resources: Making the Internet accessible for people with disabilities. Library Technology Reports, 37(4), 1–83. McNeil, J. M. (1997). Americans with disabilities: 1994–95. Current Population Reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau. Retrieved March 1, 2002, from http:// www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/p70-61.pdf. 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, American Library Association. McNulty, T. & Stedfeld, E. (1999). Making the Web page more accessible with Bobby: A case study of NYU’s Bobst Library. In McNulty, T. (Ed.), Accessible Libraries on Campus: A Practical Guide for the Creation of Disability-Friendly Libraries, 141–146. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association. Mendle, J. (1995). Library services for persons with disabilities. The Reference Librarian, No. 49/50, 105–121. Metz, R. E. & Junion-Metz, G. (1996). Using the World Wide Web and Creating Home pages: A How-to-do-it Manual. New York: Neal Schuhman. Minow, M. (1999). Does your library’s Web page violate the Americans with Disabilities Act? California Libraries, 9(4), 8–9. Retrieved March 2, 2002, from http://www.atnet.org/articles/ADA-library.html. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. (1998). New review of NIDRR grantees Web sites. The Research Exchange, 3(3), 12–14. Noble, Steve (in press). Web access and the law: a public policy framework. Library Hi Tech, 20(4). North Carolina State University. (2001). Assistive Technology in Higher Education Survey Report, September. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from http:/ /www.ncsu.edu/it/dss/survey_report.html. Oppenheim, C. & Selby, K. (1999). Access to information on the World Wide Web for blind and visually impaired people. Aslib Proceedings, 51(10), 335–345. Ormes, S. & Peacock, I. (1999). Virtually inaccessible? Making the library virtually accessible. LTWorld, February 3. Retrieved February 20, 2002, 186 Schmetzke from http://www.sbu.ac.uk/litc/lt/1999/news1317.html. Paciello, M. (1996a). Making the World Wide Web accessible for the blind and visually impaired. Florida Libraries, 39 (January/February), 5. Paciello, M. (1996b). Making the Web accessible for the deaf, hearing, and mobility impaired. Florida Libraries, 39 (July/August), 83. Paciello, M. (2000). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books. Peloquin, A. (1994). Barrier-Free Residential Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Polanka, S. & O’Gorman, J. (2001). Guidelines for creating accessible Web pages. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 5(3), 51–57. Regis University. (no date). Recommended Draft of Regis University’s Web Accessibility Policy. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.regis.edu/ disability/Webaccessibility.htm#accessibilitypolicy. Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (Section 508). Retrieved March 3, 2002, from the Access Board Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm. Roatch, M.A. (1992). High tech and library access for people with disabilities. Public Libraries, 31 (March/April), 88–98. Rouse, V. (1999). Making the Web accessible. Computers in Libraries, 19(6), 48–50. Rowland, C. (1999). University-affiliated programs face Web accessibility issues. CPD News, 22(3), 1–5. Retrieved March 2, 2002, from http:// www.cpd.usu.edu/newsletters. Rowland, C. (2000). Accessibility of the Internet in postsecondary education: meeting the challenge. Paper presented at the Universal Web Accessibility Symposium 2000, Web Net World Conference on the WWW and Internet, October 31. San Antonio Texas. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http:// www.Webaim.org/articles/meetchallenge. Rowland, C. & Smith, T. (1999). Web site accessibility. The Power of Independence, Summer Issue, 1–2. Utah: Outreach Division, Center for Persons with Disabilities: Utah State University. San Jose State University. (1998). World Wide Web Policies and Guidelines, July 7. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.sjsu.edu/pubs/Webpolicy/ Schleimann, A. (1994). ADA Compliance: What Are We Doing? Master’s paper, Kent State University. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376855). Schmetzke, A. (1999). Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: A Comparative Study. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/contents.htm. Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 187 Schmetzke, A. (2000a). Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: 2000 Survey Data. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/Survey2000/ contents2000.htm. Schmetzke, A. (2000b). Web Accessibility at Twenty-Four U.S. Universities, April/May. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/ Accessible/nationwide/Survey2000/contents2000.htm. Schmetzke, A. (2001a). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35–49. Schmetzke, A. (2001b). Distance education, Web-resources and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Thompson, H. A. (Ed.), Crossing the Divide. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 137–142, March 15–18, Denver, Colorado. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Also retrievable from http://www.ala.org/acrl/papers01/schmetzke.pdf. Schmetzke, A. (2001c). Online distance education—“anytime, anywhere” but not for everyone. Information Technology and Disabilities, 7(2). Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv07n2/contents.htm. Schmetzke, A. (2001d). Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: 2001 Survey Data. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-campuses/Survey2001/ contents2001.htm. Schmetzke, A. (2001e). Accessible Web Policies and Guidelines on Individual UW Campuses, April. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://library.uwsp.edu/ aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/Survey2001/campus_Web_policies _April2001.htm. Sharpless Smith, S. (2001). Web-Based Instruction: A Guide for Libraries. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Sreenivasan, S. (1996). Blind users add access on the Web. The New York Times, December 30, D7. Traw, J. L. (2000). Library Web Site Policies (CLIP Notes #29). Chicago, IL: College Library Information Packet Committee, College Library Section, Association of College and Research Libraries. University Libraries at the University of Akron. (2000). Web Editorial Policy: Accessibility Guidelines, April 27. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// www3.uakron.edu/library/policy/policy-access.html. University of Michigan, University Library. (2000). NISC Web Accessibility/ Browser Versions Task Force. Final Report and Recommendations., March. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.lib.umich.edu/staff/ committees/nisc/ada/ada.html. 188 Schmetzke University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2001). Policy Governing World Wide Web Accessibility, October 22. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// www.wisc.edu/wiscinfo/policy/wwwap.html. U.S. Department of Education (no date). Q & A. Title IV—Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Section 508: Electronic and Information Technology. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/archive/deptofed.html. U.S. Department of Education. California Office for Civil Rights. (1998). Letter (Case Docket No. 09-97-6001) from Stefan Rosenzweig, Regional Director to Chancellor Nussbaum, January 22. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.janejarrow.com/public_library/ocr_lof/nussbaum.html. U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Information Technology and People With Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm. U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. (1996). Letter #204 from Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division to Senator Harkin, September 9. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.usdoj.gov/ crt/foia/cltr204.txt. 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 2, 2002, from http://www.icdri.org/ the_digitial_divide.htm. Walden, B., Rowland, C., & Bohman, P. (2000). Year One Report. Learning Anytime Anywhere for Anyone. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Education, FIPSE/LAAP. Walling, L.L. (2002). Educating Students to Serve Information Seekers with Disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication. Walling, L. L. & Irwin, M. M. (Eds.). (1995). Information Services for People with Developmental Disabilities: The Library Manager’s Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. WebAIM. (2000). The Web-AIM Standard for Web Accessibility and Universality: A Prototype Standard for Postsecondary Education Settings, March. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.Webaim.org/standards/ Webaim/. Web Usability Index. (2002). Retrieved February 27, 2002, from UsableNet: http://www.usablenet.com/wui/wui_index.html. Wiler, L. L. & Lomax, E. (2000). The Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and academic libraries in the southeastern United States. Journal of Southern Academic and Special Librarianship, 2(1). Retrieved March 3, 2002, Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools 189 from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v02n01/wiler_l01.html. Wilkoff, W. L. & Abed, L. W. (1994). Practicing Universal Design: An Interpretation of the ADA. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold. Williamson, K. (2001). The role of the Internet for people with disabilities: Issues of access and equity for public libraries. Australian Library Journal, 50(2), 157–174. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (1999a). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.w3.org/TR/ WAI-WEBCONTENT/. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (1999b). Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/full-checklist.html. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000a). WAI Quick Tips Reference Card. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http:// www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Accessibility Initiative (2000b). Curriculum for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/. Yu, H. (in press). Web accessibility and the law: Recommendations for implementation. Library Hi Tech, 20(4). Yale University Library. (2000). Web Accessibility Guidelines. Retrieved March 3, 2002, from http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC/ spd2.html#s3. Young, J. R. (1998). For students with disabilities, the Web can be like a classroom without a ramp. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(27), A31. 190 Metcalfe Chapter IX Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education: A Case Study Amy Metcalfe The University of Arizona, USA ABSTRACT The number of students with disabilities who attend college is rising, which may be one of the many positive outcomes of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. While issues of adequate access to assistive technologies in computer labs, classrooms and libraries continue to be of importance for students with disabilities, it is apparent that consideration of the accessibility of academic cyberspace is also important for this growing population of students. This chapter is a case study of a successful Web accessibility initiative at the University of Arizona. Recommendations for both policy and implementation are included, with a discussion of how organizational culture and structure affects such efforts. INTRODUCTION The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has been felt in nearly every aspect of our society. People with disabilities, a group that includes about 53 million Americans,1 have more opportunities to attend school, to work and to participate in activities common to nondisabled people ten years ago. At the start Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 191 of the 21st century, the tenth anniversary of this important piece of social legislation, the application of ADA law to the realm of information technology, has the potential for even greater social reform. In Information Access and Adaptive Technology (1997), Cunningham and Coombs describe how technology can affect the lives of people with disabilities: This cultural revolution is taking place at precisely the same time that America is reaching the peak of the Information Age, a period in which computer technology and electronic information are becoming integral to our society. This technology has been a boon for people with disabilities. Adaptive input and output devices make it possible for people with any type of disability or combination of disabilities to manipulate and use computers, while special computing software and hardware packages have provided unprecedented ways for people with disabilities to accomplish tasks and access information. However, the promise of computer technology to lead to greater educational and employment opportunities for people with disabilities is often dependent upon the creation and use of assistive technology (hardware) and accessible electronic information (software and Web sites). Unlike other populations experiencing the Digital Divide, for people with disabilities, access to computers is only part of the problem. Assistive technologies, created to interface with computer hardware and software, are often necessary (and costly). At the software and Web-page level, inaccessible coding and scripts create barriers to input, navigation and informational content. In many cases, specialized training, awareness building and organizational support are necessary for widespread changes in accessibility status to occur within an institution’s Web space. Unfortunately, the mere existence of guidelines and policies has not been sufficient impetus for change in some organizations. The issue of Web accessibility, which concerns Web content and its particular coding, is an excellent example of a case where institutional values and obligations are not automatically made evident in the electronic environment of the World Wide Web. If “institutional Web space” exists, then do the same rules and standards of behavior that apply to an organization in real life also apply to its corner of cyberspace? An important place to study the concept of institutional Web space is in the field of higher education. By the absence of institutional policies that mandate electronic accessibility, barriers to equal educational and work opportunities currently exist within colleges and universities (Burgstahler, 2000). Due to the increasing awareness about the topic at an administrative level, some institutions have chosen to examine their accessibility status and create policies to ensure equal 192 Metcalfe access (Foster, 2001).2 Other institutions have yet to make any assessments regarding the issue. The process of creating an accessible Internet has been slow thus far. Although international standards for Web accessibility have been set by the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), few institutions have mandated implementation of the guidelines. Perhaps this is due, in part, to the egalitarian nature of the Internet, which has made regulation of the Web environment a politicized issue (Lessig, 1999; Liberty, 1999; Resnick, 1997). Thus, the perceived “freedom” of the Internet may in fact inhibit the implementation and enforcement of ADA legislation regarding Web accessibility. The role of individual institutions and organizations in the creation of policies that require compliance with accessibility measures within their cyber-domains is important to the understanding of the interplay between Internet regulation and civil rights issues in electronic environments. This issue deserves thorough study. In particular, research into the process of accessibility policy formation and implementation at the institutional level has the potential to identify the social and organizational factors that may either contribute to or inhibit reforms that could foster greater independence and quality of life for persons with disabilities. BACKGROUND A recent Harris Poll (June, 2000)3 shows the extent to which the Internet has offered a degree of independence for people with disabilities. The poll, “How the Internet is Improving the Lives of Americans with Disabilities,” demonstrates that the positive impact of online services and communication is much greater for adults with disabilities than for those who are not disabled. The poll reported that of people who are using the Internet: • Adults with disabilities spend, on average, twice as much time online as adults without disabilities (20 hours per week compared to 10 hours per week). • Adults with disabilities (48%) report that the Internet has significantly improved the quality of their lives, compared to 27% of nondisabled adults who said this. • Young people (under 30) with disabilities use the Internet much more than young people without disabilities: 25 hours a week versus 8 hours a week. The significance of this poll to the field of higher education is that students with disabilities are likely to perceive the Internet as a positive aspect of their lives. As the use of computers continues to rise dramatically among all college students, those with disabilitieswilllikelybenefitfromtheavailabilityofelectroniceducationalmaterials,and will probably find themselves face-to-face with issues of electronic access. Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 193 Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education The number of students with disabilities who attend college is small, but rising. Three research studies conducted in the late 1990s have provided a profile of students with disabilities in higher education. One of the reports, “An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education” (NCES, 1999), stated that about 428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled at institutions of higher education in 1996-1997 or 1997-1998. While this study, based on the Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), provided some information about students with disabilities at 2-year and 4-year institutions, it did not report the total sample of students. The U.S. Department of Education document, “Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes” (NCES, 1999), provided a breakdown of disability status among college students surveyed. In 1996, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), a nationally representative sample of undergraduate students (about 21,000), were asked to respond to the following question: “Do you have any disabilities, such as hearing, speech, mobility impairment, or vision problems that can’t be corrected with glasses?” Six percent of the sample responded yes: of those students, 29% indicated they had a learning disability; 23% said they had an orthopedic disability; 16% had a hearing loss; 16% were visually impaired; 3% had speech impairments; and 21% noted “other” disabilities or impairments. (Note that some students had multiple disabilities, so the sum does not equal 100%.) Yet another study on students with disabilities, “College Freshmen with Disabilities: A Biennial Statistical Profile” (Henderson, 1999) was published by the American Council on Education. The data for the report was gathered by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), which surveyed full-time freshmen who enrolled at public and private nonprofit universities and colleges in 1998. In the survey year, 154,520 freshmen indicated they had a disability, which was 9% of the total respondents. The report stated: In 1978, the first year the CIRP survey included a question on disabilities, slightly less than 3 percent of freshmen reported a disability. By 1998, the percentage had more than tripled to 9 percent. This meant that one in every 11 freshmen enrolled full time reported at least one disability. Thus, college and university campuses are experiencing an increase in enrollment of students who self-identify as having a disability. When reviewing statistics of college students with disabilities, it is very important to note the differences that exist among the various types of disabilities present in the group. For example, the Henderson report states that students with learning disabilities are more likely than other disabled students to be white, be from high-income families, and have earned C or D averages in high school. In contrast, students with visual impairments are 194 Metcalfe more likely than other disabled students to be female, come from lower middleclass families, and have earned an A average in high school. Among all 1998 freshmen, students with disabilities were more likely than the general cohort to be male, white, and be slightly older than other first-time freshmen. In addition, freshmen with disabilities were more likely than other students to enter a twoyear college and aspire to a vocational certificate or associates degree (Henderson, 1999). The policy implications for institutions of higher education revolve around the increasing numbers of students with disabilities who are attending college and the rise of computing services on campuses. While issues of adequate access to assistive technologies in computer labs, classrooms and libraries continues to be of importance for students with disabilities, it is apparent that consideration of the accessibility of academic cyberspace is also imperative for this rising population of students. Academic Cyberspace and Students with Disabilities In the decentralized world of academic cyberspace, Web accessibility guidelines challenge norms of self-regulation inherent to the Internet culture, while simultaneously reinforcing egalitarian notions of unfettered access to higher education. As one of the first nationally recognized issues to affect the governance of cyberspace, the topic of Web accessibility brings to light previously hidden organizational hierarchies that are endemic to collegiate computing networks. Further, Web accessibility guidelines have tested the boundaries and budgets of centralized computing services and have amplified the need for more training of Web-authoring staff in most departments and academic units. In addition, attempts to formulate Web accessibility plans call to question the locus of authority over academic cyberspace. This chapter examines these issues as they became evident during a Web accessibility implementation effort at the University of Arizona. In this process, the University’s Web council found that a “point-of-contact” evaluation and endorsement procedure fit the organizational culture best and helped to create an environment of promotion rather than enforcement. CASE STUDY: THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA The University of Arizona is a Research I institution, established in 1885 when Arizona was still a U.S. Territory. The University opened its doors in 1891 to just 32 students. Considerable growth has occurred in subsequent years, with 34,488 students enrolled in 2000. A similar pattern of growth has marked the university’s cyberspace. Although the main Web site began with just under 100 hyperlinked pages in 1994, today many thousands of Web pages share Arizona’s “edu” Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 195 extension. Since the site’s inception, usability and accessibility have been a main developmental concern. The University of Arizona’s main Web site (www.arizona.edu) is managed by the UA Web Council, an appointed committee of 13 volunteers and two paid staff members. Although the membership roster of the council has changed many times since the Web site was created in 1994, this council is still comprised of representatives from the university who are responsible for the dissemination of vital information to the campus community. The council has served to guide the fledgling Web site and to inform university administrators of issues related to this new media. In the early days of the Web site (1994–1998), the demand and expectation for Internet-based information was low, allowing the “lean” management and technical staffing structure to proceed without much trouble. However, today’s students and staff members are much more interested in using Web pages as part of their daily contact with the university. For example, according to server logs, during a one-week period in October 2001, the university’s main pages were visited by 64,884 “distinct hosts,” which roughly corresponds to the numbers of individuals who enter the UA’s cyberspace.4 In comparison, server logs for the same week in 1998 show 31,046 distinct hosts having accessed the UA’s Web pages, which is less than half the number of visitors in 2001. Yet precisely when interest in the Web site has risen, state appropriations for new staff and equipment has not kept up with the demand for new or expanded services throughout the University.5 As a result, the UA Web Council remains a volunteer body, and the number of technical staff has not grown much despite increased responsibilities. Thus, centralized services remain limited, leaving many departments with the role of hiring Web designers or training their own Web-authoring personnel. Needless to say, this has resulted in an uneven distribution of technical staff throughout the university and has contributed to the culture of decentralization so common to academic computing and network services. In spite of these challenges, the University of Arizona’s Web management structure has taken considerable strides toward overall usability of the campus Web and toward the specific issue of Web accessibility for computer users with disabilities. Today, the home page is completely accessible to users with disabilities, the result of a conscious effort by the institution’s Web managers and designers. In addition, the UA Web Council and the technical staff behind the UA’s main pages have brought the issue of Web accessibility before the campus community in a concentrated six-month effort, which has resulted in an overall rise of accessible pages at the rate of about 18%. This project will be described below. UA Web Accessibility Plan While the basic connection to the Internet is technically operated much like 196 Metcalfe telephone services, the contribution of campus units to the content of academic cyberspace is unlike other communications media. The UA’s Web site is a mosaic of pages with multiple authors. Like many academic Webs, it is not governed by a single administrative unit with a distinct office and a well-delineated hierarchy of authority. Instead, the UA Web site operates more like a collective repository with a grassroots management structure. This characteristic has been intentionally cultivated by those who began using the Web in the early years, and is very much representative of the self-governance norms of the Internet as a whole. While the lack of central authority over academic cyberspace can create difficulties for policymakers, it is precisely this culture of academic freedom that makes the Web so appealing and useful for campus units. The introduction of Web accessibility came to the University of Arizona in a gradual stream, starting with early efforts to make pages usable by anyone, anywhere. As an outgrowth of usability issues, the importance of Web accessibility seemed to come naturally to the UA’s Web management team. However, due to the exponential growth of the university’s cyberspace, only a fraction of the pages that claim a part of the “arizona.edu” domain are centrally managed and under the direct purview of the UA Web Council. Rather, most pages are managed by academic units, administrative offices and other service centers on campus. As such, there is no governing body that has influence over the entire “arizona.edu” domain. While this structure is not uncommon for academic Web sites, it provides challenges to the formulation and implementation of Web accessibility plans. While the issues of Web accessibility at a basic level had been part of the Council’s focus from the beginning, a more formalized approach to the topic began during the spring semester of 2001. It became apparent to the Council that issues of Web accessibility would require creative uses of resources and an investment of time from the largely volunteer Council’s membership. In addition, the Council began to form a working relationship with the University’s Disability Resource Center (DRC) and the ADA Coordinator’s office. Further, the Council sought advice from the university’s Attorney’s Office and Center for Computing and Information Technology (CCIT) administrators. The UA Web Council’s central role in a campus-wide Web accessibility plan was influenced by three factors: precedent for overseeing Web-related issues, member contact with federally funded grants that highlighted issues of access for the disabled and an institutional request to investigate the university’s responsibilities in light of federal legislation. Much of the success of the UA Web Council’s efforts toward bringing the issues of Web accessibility to the foreground was due to the direct and indirect influence of three federally funded projects devoted to increasing access to higher education for students with disabilities. The first of these grants was the Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education grant program titled “Demon- Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 197 stration Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Education for Students with Disabilities.” The University of Arizona’s grant is titled “Program to Enhance and Ensure Learning (PEEL) for Students with Disabilities.”6 As the UA’s grant was housed in the University Teaching Center, a campus entity that plays a role in providing technical training to faculty who desire to create instructional Web pages, raising awareness of electronic access issues became part of PEEL’s contribution to a more open academic environment for students with disabilities. Through several PEEL projects, campus computing staff and staff from the Disability Resource Center became working partners, thus paving the way for later discussions on ways in which to improve Web accessibility campus-wide. Another federal program, the Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP), also provided assistance to the UA Web Council during the initial phases of formulating the campus Web accessibility plan. One of the LAAP projects, the Virtual Adaptive Learning Architecture (VALA)7 program, included an emphasis on meeting federal guidelines for Web accessibility. Through staff training efforts and project team discussions, the VALA site was adapted for accessibility. In a short time, the staff involved in the VALA project became accessibility consultants for others in the instructional computing area, which also added to the resources available to the UA Web Council when the time came for a thorough discussion of Web accessibility. In the process of reviewing other LAAP grants, the WebAIM8 project was discovered. WebAIM was started to provide information via the Internet to postsecondary institutions on the topic of Web accessibility. Staff members from the WebAIM program were invited to the University of Arizona in April 2001 to work with the VALA project team and to offer specific information about organizing a campus-wide accessibility plan. A presentation by WebAIM staff was organized for the campus community and was attended by over 90 campus Webmasters and staff from various departments. This event was the first of several university-wide presentations sponsored by the UA Web Council on the topic of Web accessibility and was helpful in raising awareness of the legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of the Web at institutions of higher education. With the help of WebAIM staff and cooperative efforts from the Disability Resource Center and ADA Coordinator, the UA Web Council developed a plan to address the issue of Web accessibility on campus. First, it was decided that a baseline study was needed to better understand the present state of accessibility of high-level campus Web pages. Second, the complicated recommendations and guidelines for accessibility issued by various federal and nonprofit agencies would be simplified for the campus audience to account for varying comfort levels with hand-coding HTML. Third, a detailed Web-based resource would be created for 198 Metcalfe the campus community, and workshops would be given to introduce the resource to campus Webmasters. Fourth, a logo would be created for use on Web sites that met accessibility guidelines, and a paper certificate would be created as an award for the departments making the necessary changes. This four-part plan was begun in May 2001 and continued through the summer and into the following academic year. Baseline Study In May of 2001, the UA Web Council’s Web Resources Committee and the Disability Resource Center tested 224 departmental home pages, which were hyperlinked from the main university Web site. Although several methods of accessibility testing were discussed, it was determined that the best method for an initial test was to use the Bobby Downloadable Accessibility Tool, also known as Bobby 3.2.9 The decision to use the Bobby tool was based on the fact that it was free and available to anyone over the Internet (enabling departments to test their own sites if they desired), it had been used by other researchers (see Schmetzke, 1999, 2000), and it was quick. However, there were drawbacks to the Bobby system in that it was only able to check for very basic accessibility guidelines and could not detect errors that required subjective reasoning. In this way, it was highly unlikely for Bobby to generate a “not approved” rating for an accessible site given that the features it was able to check were fairly straightforward (alt-tags and NOFRAMES tags). In addition, these features were the easiest to correct by someone wanting to make a site accessible. However, it was very likely that the Bobby tool would provide a false “approved” rating in that many more features would have to be manually checked in order to ensure that a site was indeed fully accessible. Therefore, the data generated from the baseline test can only be used as a general guide and are not intended to report actual accessibility rates for any set of Web sites. Of the 224 pages checked during the first baseline test in May of 2001, 45 pages received an “approved” rating (20%) and 179 received a “not approved rating” (80%). When the test was repeated in October 2001, more pages had been hyperlinked to the index page, resulting in a sample of 262 pages. Of these 262 pages, 100 received an “approved” rating (38%), and 162 received the “not approved” rating (62%). Thus, in the time since the first test, the number of “approved” pages that were hyperlinked from the departmental home page index rose by 18%. In this six-month period of time, the UA Web Council gave seven presentations on Web accessibility to over 232 campus Webmasters and other staff members and had made available a Web site on accessibility (discussed below). For sake of comparison, a similar study conducted at the University of Wisconsin system by Schmetzke shows that the UW-Madison campus’s academic depart- Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 199 ment pages rose from 38% accessible in 1999 to 44% accessible in 2001, for a change of just 6% over two years.10 While the rise in the number of accessible Web pages at the University of Arizona during the period of May to October 2001 may not be indisputable evidence of the effectiveness of the workshops and resources provided by the UA Web Council, the number suggests that campus Webmasters were responding to the issue and making changes to their sites. External factors, such as increased exposure to Section 508 guidelines through trade magazines and conferences, may be responsible for the changes. A more detailed study would be needed to examine which departments and administrative units have made accessibility changes and to find patterns that mightexisttoexplainwhytheywereableandwillingtomaketheirWeb pages accessible, while other departments were not. It is likely that the availability of resources, both in skilled labor and technology, might have an impact on a campus unit’s ability to revise Web pages for accessibility. This is no small factor, especially given that software companies have not made significant strides in creating adequate WYSIWIG Web-authoring tools that automatically create accessible Web pages. Web Accessibility Resources Online After the completion of the first baseline study, it was apparent that an easyto-use guide for making accessible Web pages was needed to help the University of Arizona’s Webmasters. The Web Resources Committee created a series of pages dedicated to Web accessibility as part of an overall effort to create online resource pages on various topics of Web design for use by campus Webmasters. The Web Accessibility Resources area (http://uaWeb.arizona.edu/resources/ accessibility.shtml) is divided into the following sections: Why Accessible?, Testing Tools, Support, Makeovers & Examples, UA Web Accessibility Implementation Plan and UA Accessible Web Sites. Each content area contains many pages that provide detailed information about how to make Web pages accessible and the rationale for doing so. While many useful Web sites already exist that explain how to code Web pages for accessibility, the Web Resources Committee decided that the University of Arizona’s Webmasters and Web authors would be more comfortable with a homegrown version that specified campus policies and provided local support information. It was also decided that examples specific to the University of Arizona would provide incentive for Webmasters to participate in the move toward accessibility and would strengthen the Web community on campus. Part of this process was to ask a few departments and administrative units if their sites could be “made-over” by the UA Web Team and displayed on the Web Accessibility site in a “before and after” fashion. It was also discovered during campus presentations that a “dummy” site containing several accessibility errors was useful as an example, 200 Metcalfe and it provided an opportunity to have a “makeover” that did not cause potential embarrassment to any specific campus entity. The dummy site also allowed for a detailed set of alternative displays, such as a page that provides a “transcript” of a JAWS screen reader as it would sound reading both the inaccessible and the accessible versions, an image of the pages as if they were being viewed with a text-only browser and an image of the pages as if they were being viewed with images turned off in the browser. Examples such as these have proven invaluable for instructional purposes when presented to Web site developers at campus workshops. An important part of the Web Accessibility Resources site is the inclusion of the UA Web Accessibility Implementation Plan. In the absence of specific institutional policy regarding Web accessibility, the UA Web Council partnered with the Disability Resource Center and the ADA Coordinator to develop a three-phase plan to gradually introduce accessibility guidelines to campus Webmasters. It was felt that W3C guidelines and Section 508 guidelines were somewhat confusing for the average Web author on campus. As such, the guidelines were broken down into three phases, with the compliance goal for Phase One set at January 1, 2002 and the goal for Phase Two at January 1, 2003. The date for Phase Three is unset due to questions the council has about the feasibility of achieving compliance with the guidelines, such as those for synchronous captioning for multimedia elements. It is hoped that as technical solutions are found for these guidelines, a realistic compliance goal can be set, sometime in the near future. Phase One of the UA Web Accessibility Implementation Plan was the primary focus of Council workshops and presentations in 2001. Phase One guidelines are similar to Section 508 guidelines, and they address the most common accessibility errors. The Phase One guidelines are as follows: 1. ALT Tags: A text equivalent for every nontext element shall be provided for every image within the Web site. 2. Image Maps: Image maps must be made as accessible as possible by adding ALT tags for each hot spot and providing redundant text links. 3. Color: Color-coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information. The contrast between colors used should be distinct. 4. Hyperlink Titles: The titles for each hyperlink must be meaningful. Titles like “Click Here” can cause problems. 5. Frames: If your Web site is using frames, a NOFRAMES section with equivalent content will be provided. Meaningful titles will be provided for each frame. 6. Charts and Graphs: The content and meaning of a chart or graph should be described in text to make it accessible to all users. Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 201 7. Form Labels: Form elements will be tagged with the label attribute. Contact information will be provided on each page with a form. 8. Scripts, Applets and Plug-Ins/PDF: Provide contact information on each page with a script, applet or plug-in so that users can ask questions or request the information in an alternative format. On the Web Accessibility Resources site, each numbered guideline is hyperlinked to a set of pages that contain detailed directions for making HTML changes to correct accessibility errors. In addition to the eight areas above, the Phase One guideline page also mentions how to create user-centered Web pages, discusses text-only equivalents, includes information about what to do with archived or out-of-date pages and contains some thoughts about Webmaster responsibilities. Phase Two guidelines add four guideline areas for campus Webmasters to consider: tables, cascading style sheets, skip navigation links and a discussion of how to make changes to dynamic HTML to improve accessibility. Many of the changes recommended in Phase Two are beneficial for accessibility but may require more technical skill than many campus Web developers currently posses or may address issues that are not being utilized by the majority of Web developers at the university. For example, cascading style sheets are helpful for many users, yet many WYSIWIG Web-authoring tools do not provide adequate support to create them without specialized technical knowledge. Likewise, the use of scripts such as Java is not widely found on campus Web sites, but someone with this experience could read the guidelines and make the necessary changes. It is also hoped that Webmasters with high skill levels will jump beyond the Phase One guidelines quickly and move on to the more complicated accessibility fixes as they are able. Web Accessibility Icon and Certificate Program As the UA Web Council was not in the position to review Web sites for accessibility compliance or to require changes be made, it decided that a recognition program would provide an incentive for departments to voluntarily review their sites and make accessibility changes. A series of icons (Figure 1) was developed that is used to identify pages within the university’s domain that have been rendered accessible by the responsible Webmaster or departmental representative. The concept was patterned after other successful programs such as the Bobby Accessible logo and the W3C’s HTML conformance icons. Approved applicants may display the UA Web Accessible icon on their page, provided that they hyperlink it to the Web Accessibility Resources home page and utilize an appropriate alt-tag on the image. In the first few months of the program, more than 30 campus departments completed the Phase One requirements and requested permission to use one of the “UA Web Accessible” icons on their pages. In addition to the use of the icons, a certificate is provided with each approval, which can be 202 Metcalfe Figure 1: Web accessibility icons framed and displayed in the Webmaster’s office or in a public area. It is hoped that these incentives will contribute to a culture of access that has already begun to form in the University of Arizona’s electronic environment. Point-of-Contact Model Creating a culture of access is only the first step to a truly accessible Web environment. To be fully accessible, a system of accountability and oversight must be developed and maintained. Due to the decentralized management structure of the University of Arizona’s Web site as a whole, there was no existing reporting structure or hierarchy of personnel that might provide the backbone of such a system. However, the main Web pages, from which hundreds of campus pages are hyperlinked and indexed, are centrally maintained by the UA Web Team. As part of the “hyperlink policy,” the Webmasters of campus Web pages currently agree to abide by specified guidelines in order to be indexed from the main university pages. The addition of Web accessibility guidelines to the hyperlink policy would serve to reinforce institutional commitment to such issues, while providing a mechanism for compliance review. At this time, the UA Web Council does not feel that it would be fair to “unlink” sites that do not comply with changes in the hyperlink guidelines, but adding a “buffer” page might be an option. On the one hand, unlinking a site would not cause a page to disappear from the Web, but it would have to be found through a search tool on the university’s main page, a departmental page or by using a Web browser. The buffer page, however, would leave the nonconforming page hyperlinked to the main pages and would require users to pass through a disclaimer page that indicated that the page had not met university guidelines. Either scenario would be unappealing to Webmasters, and probably to visitors to the university’s Web site. Yet, this “point-of-contact” with the main Web page is important, and for some units, it is vital to the dissemination of their information. A “buffer-page” policy might unfairly penalize academic units or departments for lack of technical skill to make changes to their sites or for the inability to provide timely revisions. In response, some Webmasters may feel that it is a better short-term solution to remove themselves from the main Web page and indexes, thus creating Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 203 an informational void and absence of participation by that academic unit or department. That would not be a “win-win” scenario. In addition, this type of “topdown” management structure goes against much of the grassroots characteristics of academic cyberspace and does not reflect the nature of the Web environment as a whole. Careful consideration of the hyperlink policy is currently underway so as to not place an undue burden on campus Webmasters and to prevent a loss of informational content from the university’s Web community. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS The study of policy formation in regard to Web accessibility is essential to the understanding of institutional responsibility in academic cyberspace. Whereas colleges and universities have responded to the needs of disabled students, faculty, staff and visitors in the physical world, only recently has there been an organized effort to accommodate their needs in the Web environment. Complete understanding of the institutional climate surrounding the use of Web-space is critical to the full implementation of accessibility policy. For example, to implement ADA policy in physical spaces, architects and contractors are required to submit specific blueprints, plans and budgets reflecting ADA compliance before work begins. However, as institutional Web space is not managed like architectural improvements, it is much more difficult to ensure compliance with an accessibility policy, even if one exists. This is in part due to: a) The participatory nature of the Internet, as many people (staff and nonstaff) contribute to a college or university’s Web space b) A lack of Web site supervision and evaluation on many campuses c) A lack of formal introduction to institutional Web policies for designers Additionally, in an era of increasing interest in online registration, course information and student services, it is imperative that administrators understand the potential barriers to electronic information access before noncompliant systems (commercial or homegrown) are installed. The knowledge of “best-practice” cases and an in-depth analysis of the process of accessibility policy formation would inform disability advocates and educational administrators in the ways their organizations can best serve their constituents (current and future) and avoid costly litigation. One of the challenges yet to be met by many institutions of higher education is the issue of accessible electronic course materials. While many colleges and universities have struggled to create and implement policies that govern institutional Web space and to foster an accessible online environment with their public pages, individual courses are often exempt from these efforts. Part of the reasoning usually behind this is that individual students who need accommodations are routinely offered services through disability resource centers and the like. It is surmised that 204 Metcalfe the students who need access to online content will obtain help from these service centers. While this may be true, colleges and universities are going to have to examine the expense and inconvenience caused by providing the same accommodations over and over again to different students. It may be more cost effective and considerate to make all online course content accessible from the start, rather than to make accommodations on a case-by-case basis. However, it will take considerable funding and effort to raise the issue of electronic accessibility among instructional staff and faculty and to provide adequate training and oversight. It is this balancing of resources and responsibility that has left this issue at a standstill. Further, as one of the promises of distance learning is that it has the potential to reach a new group of students who are not otherwise served by an on-campus educational environment, it is imperative that colleges and universities examine the process of accessibility policy formation in order to best utilize Web-based teaching methods. It would be a tragic oversight if distance learning programs were formed without attention paid to the needs of disabled students and an understanding of the institutional attitudes that may either promote or inhibit the accessibility of online courses. In addition, institutions of higher education may serve as examples for other organizations in regard to this issue. By building awareness of accessibility and providing a more equal and participatory Web-environment, colleges and universities can serve as social models for balancing the needs of free speech and open source withtheprotectionofcivilrightsforminoritypopulations.Further,itisimperativethatthis opportunity be recognized before institutions purchase and implement software and infrastructure systems that are not accessible, which may lead to costly compliance upgrades in the future or a solidification of electronic-access barriers. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Academic cyberspace is a unique blend of traditional collegiate culture that supports norms of academic freedom and computing culture that adheres to its independence, even through the development of complex networks and interoperable systems. Neither culture is particularly predisposed to regulation or oversight, which must be acknowledged by those interested in creating guidelines or policies that concern use and management of the Internet in academia. Yet, public institutions of higher education are conferred with a particular social contract: open access to education. Due to this notion, Web accessibility guidelines may have less resistance than other regulatory measures that may affect academic cyberspace. Yet, it is important to note that the nature of the Web is egalitarian, and institutional strong-arming will not likely be met with favor where the Web is concerned. Several steps should be taken by institutions that are considering Web Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 205 accessibility guidelines, or the implementation of such policies. First, an assessment of the institution’s cyberspace should be undertaken. An understanding of the management structure of campus computing networks, existing policies that affect Web sites and a feel for the culture and value-systems of the Web are necessary to successful planning. Second, alliances between campus units must be created. In particular, campus computing staff and disability services staff should create a working relationship. Other areas to include might be library staff and instructional support personnel. Without strong networks between these units, Web accessibility guidelines may be underdeveloped and misrepresented across campus. Third, the utilization of external resources is a very important factor to the success of Web accessibility implementation. Postsecondary educational institutions are unique, and a better understanding of best practices from other campus communities is essential to an honest appraisal of the workload and resources necessary to create a viable plan. In addition, federally funded groups such as WebAIM are excellent resources with tailor-made solutions for higher education. Finally, it is essential to create an atmosphere that rewards change. Through promotions such as accessibility icons and certificates, Webmasters are recognized for the efforts that they have taken to contribute to a culture of access. It is important to note that Web sites are often maintained by staff and students who have not been fully trained in Web development. Their efforts to learn how to code HTML for accessibility deserve praise, yet their work may not be noticed in their departments or academic units. A process by which the Web community at large can recognize the work of these accessibility advocates will help to alleviate some of the isolation that can be found in academic cyberspace. Also, the professionalcaliber computing personnel who take the time to learn about Web accessibility deserve kudos as well. Many computer experts in academe are overworked, trying to keep up with the demand of increased services, so strides made toward accessibility are worthy of reward. In summation, Web accessibility policies must be created and implemented with mutual respect in mind: respect for the time and effort it will take for staff members to adapt to the new guidelines as well as respect for the prospective and current students and staff members who will be aided by the changes. ENDNOTES 1 2 According to a 1997 U.S. Census Bureau report, 5.26 million Americans reported some type of disability, equaling 19.7% of the population. The full report can be read online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/sipp/ disable97.html. Notable examples of Web accessibility policies can be found in the California 206 Metcalfe Community College system, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the SUNY system and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For a discussion of Web accessibility policies, legislation and controversies, see the WAI’s page at http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/. 3 “How the Internet is Improving the Lives of Americans with Disabilities,” Harris Poll #30, June 7, 2000. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/ index.asp?PID=93. 4 Server statistics for the University of Arizona can be found at http:// www.arizona.edu/usage/. 5 The state of Arizona increased appropriations to the University of Arizona by 6% in 1998–1999, but only by 2.6% in 2000–2001. See the Chronicle of Higher Education’s index of State Appropriations for Higher Education, 12/ 15/2000 and 11/27/1998. 6 The Department of Education’s Web site for this grant can be found at http:/ /www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/disabilities/index.html. 7 Information about the VALA project can be found at www.vala.arizona.edu. 8 Information about WebAIM can be found on their Web site at www.Webaim.org. 9 Bobby 3.2 can be found on the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST)’s Web site at www.cast.org/bobby. 10 Schmetzke’s analysis can been seen at http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/ Accessible/UW-Campuses/Survey2001/data.htm. REFERENCES Anonymous. (2000). Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: 2000 Survey Data. Retrieved March 6, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/Survey2000/contents2000.htm. Burgstahler, S. (2000). Access to Internet-based instruction for people with disabilities. In Petrides, L. A. (Ed.), Case Studies on Information Technology in Higher Education: Implications for Policy and Practice, 76–88. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Cunningham, C. & Coombs, N. (1997). Information Access and Adaptive Technology. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Foster, A. L. (2001). Colleges focus on making Web sites work for people with disabilities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 26. Henderson, C. (1999). College Freshmen with Disabilities: A Biennial Statis- Overcoming Organizational Barriers to Web Accessibility in Higher Education 207 tical Profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved March 6, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/CollegeFresh.pdf. Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 6, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nces.ed.gov/ pubs99/1999187.pdf. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 1999046. Libery (The National Council for Civil Liberties). (Ed.). (1999). Liberating Cyberspace: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and the Internet. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press. Resnick, D. (1997). Politics on the Internet: The normalization of cyberspace. New Political Science, Fall, 47–67. Schmetzke, A. (1999). Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: A Comparative Study. Retrieved March 6, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/contents.htm. Taylor, H. (2000). How the Internet is improving the lives of Americans with disabilities. Harris Poll #30. Retrieved March 6, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=93. 208 Metcalfe Part V Reference Desk Appendix A 209 Appendix A Resources for Further Information The following organizations provide information and further resources for disability-related issues. This list is not inclusive. All Web sites for these listings were retrieved on March 31, 2002. Please contact Mary Hricko to add or revise these listings. Adaptive Technology Resources ABLEDATA 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 930 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Voice: 800-227-0216 Fax: 301-608-8958 TTY: 301-608-8912 Web: http://www.abledat.com/Site_2/Default.htm Adaptive Environments Center, Inc. 374 Congress Street Suite 301 Boston, MA 02210 Voice: 617-695-1225 Fax: 617-482-8099 Web: http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 210 Appendix A Assistive Technology and Resources and Product Directories http://communities.msn.com/AdaptiveandAssistiveTechnology/atresources.msnw Closing the Gap, Inc. P.O. Box 68 526 Main Street Henderson, MN 56044 Voice: 612-248-3294 Fax: 507-248-3810 Web: http://www.closingthegap.com Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) http://www.rit.edu/~easi/ Family Center on Technology and Disability http://fctd.ucp.org Learning Disabilities Association of America 4156 Library Rd. Pittsburgh, PA 15234 Voice: 412-341-1515 Web: http://www.ldanatl.org National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) http://ncam.wgbh.org Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic http://www.rfbd.org WebRING http://i.webring.com/hub?ring=assistivetechnol&list Disability Research Centers Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) 39 Cross Street, Suite 201 Peabody, MA 01960 Voice: 978-531-8555 TTY: 978-538-3110 Appendix A 211 Web: http://www.cast.org Center on Disability Studies http://www.cds.hawaii.edu Disabilities, Opportunities, Internet-Working, Technologies (DO-IT) University of Washington Box 355670 Seattle, WA 98195-5670 Voice/TTY: 206-685-3648 Toll Free: 888-972-3648 Fax: 206-221-4171 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.washington.edu/html Special Needs Opportunities Windows (SNOW) Adaptive Technology Resource Centre 130 St. George Street, 1st Floor Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H1 Voice: 416-946-8301 Fax: 416-978-7705 Web: http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference.html Trace Research and Development Center University of Wisconsin-Madison S-151 Waisman Center 1500 Highland Avenue Madison, WI 53705-2280 Voice: 608-262-6966 TTY: 608-263-5408 Fax: 608-262-8848 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://trace.wisc.edu W3C Web Accessibility Initiative MIT/LCS Room NE43-355 200 Technology Square Cambridge, MA, 02139 Voice: 617-253-2613 Web: http://www.w3.org/WAI/contacts.html 212 Appendix A Educational Resources American Association for Higher Education Project EASI One Dupont Circle Suite 360 Washington DC, 20036 Voice: 210-640-3193 The Council for Exceptional Children 1920 Association Drive Reston, VA 20191-1589 Voice: 703-620-3660 TTY: 703-264-9446 Fax: 703-264-9494 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.cec.sped.org ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities ERIC/OSEP Special Project Council for Exceptional Children 1920 Association Drive Reston, VA 22091-1589 Voice: 800-328-0272 TTY: 703-264-9449 Fax: 703-620-2521 Web: http://ericir.syr.edu/ HEATH Resource Center of the American Council on Education Web: http://www.heath-resource-center.org National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) King Street Station I 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320 Alexandria, VA 22314 Voice: 703-519-3800 Fax: 703-519-3808 TTY: 703-519-7008 Appendix A 213 National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum Web: http://www.cast.org/ncac National Center to Improve Tools of Educators (NCITE) University of Oregon DLIL College of Education 1211 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1211 Web: http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY) Academy for Educational Development P.O. Box 1492 Washington, DC 20013-1492 Voice/TTY: 202-884-8200 Voice/TTY: 800-695-0285 Fax: 202-884-8441 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.aed.org/nichcy/ National Information Clearinghouse on Children Who are Deaf-Blind Web: http://www.tr.wou.edu/dblink National Learning Disabilities Association 4156 Library Road Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1349 Voice: 412-341-1515 Fax: 412-344-0224 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.Idanatl.org/ National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities (NTA) Academy for Educational Development 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20009 Voice: 202-884-8181 Fax: 202-884-8443 214 Appendix A E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.dssc.org/nta Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education 330 C Street, SW, Room 3086 Washington, DC 20202 Voice/TTY: 202-205-8824 E-mail: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index.html Students with Disabilities Resources California State University, Northridge 18111 Nordhoff Street, SB 110 Northridge, CA 91330-8264 Voice/TTY/Message: 818-677-2684 Fax: 818-677-4929 E-mail: [email protected] Government Resources Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 1331 F. Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1111 Voice: 800-872-2253 TTY: 800-993-2822 Web: http://access-board.gov Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation (GSA) KGDO, 18th & F Street, NW Room 2022 Washington, DC 20405 Voice: 202-501-4906 Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035-6738 Voice: 800-514-0301 TTY: 800-514-0383 Appendix A 215 Web: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm Disability Rights Center 2500 Q St. NW, Suite 121 Washington, DC 20007 Voice: 202-337-4119 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Voice/TTY: 888-225-5322 Web: http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro Center for IT Accommodation (CITA) 1800 F Street, NW Room 1234, MC: MKC Washington, DC 20405-0001 Voice: 202-501-4906 TTY: 202-501-2010 Library of Congress National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Web: http://lcweb.loc.gov/nls National Council on Disability 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington DC 20004 Voice: 202-272-2004 TTY: 202-272-2074 Web: http://www.ncd.gov The RESNA Technical Assistance (TA) Project 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1540 Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Voice: 703-524-6686 TTY: 703-524-6639 Fax: 703-524-6630 Web: http://www.resna.org/resna/ 216 Appendix A Organizations and Associations Alliance for Technology Access 2175 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L San Rafael, CA 94901 Voice: 415-455-4575 Fax: 415-455-0654 TTY: 415-455-0491 Web: http://www.ataccess.org/about/contacts.html American Council of the Blind 1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 720 Washington, DC 20005 Voice: 202-467-5081 Toll Free: 800-424-8666 Fax: 202-467-5085 Web: http://acb.org/ American Foundation for the Blind 11 Penn Plaza, Suite 300 New York, NY 10001 Voice: 212-502-7600 Fax: 212-502-7777 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.afb.org/afb American Foundation for the Blind Technology Center Voice: 212-502-7642 E-mail: [email protected] AFB Information Center Toll Free: 800-AFB-LINE E-mail: [email protected] The Arc of the United States (Assisting with Mental Retardation) 500 East Boarder Street, Suite 300 Arlington, TX 76010 Voice: 817-261-6003 TTY: 817-277-0553 Appendix A 217 Fax: 817-277-3491 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://thearc.org/welcome.html National Braille Association 3 Townlie Circle Rochester, NY 14623-2513 Web: http://www.nationalbraille.org National Association of the Deaf 814 Thayer Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910-4500 Voice: 301-578-1788 TTY: 301-578-1789 Fax: 301-578-1791 E-mail: [email protected] National Center for Learning Disabilities 99 Park Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10016 Voice: 212-687-7211 National Easter Seal Society 230 West Monroe, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Voice: 312-726-6200 TDD: 312-726-4258 Fax: 312-726-1494 E-mail: [email protected] National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, MD 21230 Voice: 410-659-9314 Fax: 410-685-5653 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.nfb.org/ National Rehabilitation Association 633 S. Washington, VA 22314 218 Appendix A Voice: 703-836-0850 Fax: 703-836-0848 National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC) 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 935 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3319 Voice: 800-346-274 Voice: 301-588-9284 TTY: 301-495-5626 Fax: 301-587-1967 BBS: 301-589-3563 Web: http://www.naric.com/naric. Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH) 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1200 Bethesda, Md 20814 Voice: 301-657-2248 TTY: 301-657-2249 Fax: 301-913-9413 E-mail: [email protected] United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. 1660 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5602 Voice/TTY: 202-776-0406 Toll Free: 800-USA-5UCP Fax: 202-776-0414 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.ucpa.org/ TDD: 703-836-084 E-mail: [email protected] Regional Resource and Federal Centers for Special Education The Federal Resource Center for Special Education (FRC) Academy for Educational Development 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 900 Appendix A 219 Washington, DC 20009 Voice: 202-884-8215 TTY: 202-884-8200 Fax: 202-884-8443 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.dssc.org/frc Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center (GLARRC) Center for Special Needs Populations The Ohio State University 700 Ackerman Road Suite 440 Columbus, OH 43202 Voice: 614-447-0844 Fax: 614-447-9043 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.csnp.ohio-state.edu/glarrc.htm Mid-South Regional Resource Center (MSRRC) Human Development Institute University of Kentucky 126 Mineral Industries Building Lexington, KY 40506-0051 Voice: 606-257-4921 TTY: 606-257-2903 Fax: 606-257-4353 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://ihdi.ihdi.uky.edu/MSRRC.html Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) MPRRC-Utah State University 1780 North Research Parkway Suite 112 Logan, UT 84341 Voice: 801-752-0238 TTY: 801-753-9750 Fax: 801-753-9750 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.educ.drake.edu/rc/RRC/mprrc.html Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERRC) 220 Appendix A Trinity College of Vermont McAuley Hall 208 Colchester Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-1496 Voice: 802-658-5036 TTY: 802-860-1428 Fax: 802-658-7435 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://interact.uoregon.edu/wrrc/nerrc/index.h South Atlantic Regional Resource Center (SARRC) Florida Atlantic University 1236 North University Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Voice: 954-473-6106 Fax: 954-424-4309 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.fau.edu/divdept/sarrc/ Western Regional Resource Center (WRRC) 1268 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1268 Voice: 541-346-5641 TTY: 541-346-0367 Fax: 541-346-5639 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://interact.uoregon.edu/wrrc/wrrc.html Web Sites The following Web sites were retrieved on March 31, 2002. Web Accessibility Legal Reference A Guide to Disability Rights Laws http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/disabilityrights.html Center for Information Technology Accommodation http://www.gsa.gov/coca/wwwcode.htm Appendix A 221 Federal IT Accessibility Initiative http://www.section508.gov Laws related to Disability Services and Provisions http://www.resna.org/taproject/library/inforesources.html Marshall, P. (2001). 508 compliance product updates. FCW.COM, Federal Computer Week. http://fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0521/cov-508rev-0521-01.asp. Non-discrimination on the basis of disability in state and local government services. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. (1992). http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/regs/ 28cfr35.html#S130. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Regulations http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/regs/34cfr104.html Section 508 Standards of the Access Board http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm Guides for Developing Accessible Design A Primer for Accessible Web Pages http://www.oriellynet.com/pub/a/javascript/synd/2001/11/30/acessibility.html ?page=2 Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Universal Design for Learning http://www.cast.org/udl/ The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ Design Guidelines for the World Wide Web http://www.coedu.ust.edu/inst_tech/resources/WWWDESG_1.htm Making Your Web Pages Accessible http://gbgm-umc.org/docs/acchtml.html Microsoft Accessibility Center http://www.microsoft.com/enable 222 Appendix A Trace Center. Designing More Usable Web Sites http://trace.wisc.edu/world/web/ Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (1999a). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000b). Curriculum for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http:// www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/. Yale Center Web Style Manual http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/Stylemanual_Top.html Web Accessibility Checklists and Validation Tools A-Prompt (Accessibility Prompt http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca Bobby Accessibility Validator (Center for Applied Special Technology) http://www.cast.org/bobby/ Captioned Media Program http://www.cfv.org Jaws Validator http://www.hj.com MAGpie (Media Access Generator) http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie pwWebSpeak http://www.prodworks.com/index.htm Starling Access Services http://www.starlingweb.com WAVE (Web Accessibility Versatile Evaluator) http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/ Appendix A 223 WebAIM. Section 508 Web Accessibility Checklist. http://www.webaim.org/standards/508/checklist. Weblink http://www.weblink.com Web Page Accessibility Self-Examination Test http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/dma/access/testverl.htm Web Techniques http://newmanservices.com/colorblind/default.asp Web Usability Index (2002). http://www.usablenet.com/wui/wui_index.html. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (1999b). Checklist of checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WAIWEBCONTENT/full-checklist.html. World Wide Web (W3C) Authoring Tools Access Guidelines. http:// www.w3.org/TR/WAI-AUTOOLS. Web-Based Disability Resources and Information Basic Questions to Ask When Purchasing Technology http://www.resna.org/tap/aet_bpqu.htm Best Viewed with Any Browser http://server.berkeley.edu/~cdaveb/anybrowser.html Disability Information for Students and Professionals http://www.abilityinfo.com/ Disability Research http://www.aboutdisability-com/bibi.html Disability Statistics Center http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu Disability Studies On-Line Magazine 224 Appendix A http://www.disabilitstudies.com DRM Webwatcher http://www.disabilityresources.org/DRMwww.html Electronic Resources on Disabilities (ACRL) http://www.ala.org/acrl/resfeb00.html Empowerment Zone http://www.empowermentzone.com Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) http://www.rit.edu/~easi/resource.htm Internet Resources for Special Children http://www.irsc.org:8080/irsc/irscmain.nsf Gonzalez, E., Kuster, J., & Steinbach, L.. Communication Sciences and Disorders. Association of College & Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ resfeb01.html. Hamilton, E. Resources for People with Print Disabilities http://w3.one.net/~hamile/ disab/ Integrated Network of Disability and Information (INDIE) http://laurence.canlearn.ca/english/learn/accessibility2001/indie/index.html Lubin, J. Disability Information and Resources. http://www.makoa.org Regional Disability and Business Technology Assistance Centers http://www.adata.org Schmetze, A. Accessible Web Page Design: Resources. http://library.uwsp.edu/ aschmetz/Accessible/pub_resources.htm WebABLE Resources http://www.webable.com/library/linkspage.html The Web-AIM STANDARD for Web Accessibility and Universality: A prototype standard for postsecondary education settings. http://www.webaim.org/ standards/webaim/. Appendix B 225 Appendix B Selected Bibliography for Further Reading This bibliography provides a list of resources for further reading and review. The citations include information on Web accessibility practices, discussion of usability guidelines and research on assistive and adaptive technologies. This bibliography is not inclusive, but rather a work in progress. Please contact Mary Hricko at [email protected] to add additional citations and informational resources to this list. Books Adkins, S. (2001). Accessible E-Learning: 2001 Market Trends and Evaluation Tips. New York: Brandon Hall. Alliance for Technology Access. (2000). Computer and Web Resources for People with Disabilities: A Guide to Exploring Today’s Assistive Technology. Alameda, CA: Hunter House Publications. Anders, R. & Fechtner, D. (1992). Universal Design. Brooklyn, NY: Pratt Institute Department of Industrial Design and Pratt Center for Advanced Design Research (CADRE). Anonymous. (1992). ADA: Technical Assistance Information and Resources. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association. Anonymous. (1994). ADA Handbook: Disability Discrimination: Statutes, Regulations and Related Materials, Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. Anonymous. (1994). NARIC Guide to Disability and Rehabilitation Periodicals. Silver Spring, MD: NARIC. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 226 Appendix B Bain, B. (1997). Assistive Technology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. NY: Church Livingstone. Bar, L. & Galluzzo, J. (1999). The Accessible School: Universal Design for Educational Settings. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications. Berliss, J. (1993). Trace Resource Book: Assistive Technologies for Communication, Control, and Computer Access. Madison, WI: Trace Research and Development Center. Birnbaum, B. (1999). Connecting Special Education and Technology for the 21st Century. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellon Press. Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal Design in Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Branson, G. D. (1991). The Complete Guide to Barrier-Free Housing: Convenient Living for the Elderly and Physically Handicapped. White Hall, VA: Betterway Publications. Brett, A. (1995). Adaptive Technology for Special Human Needs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Burgstahler, S., Comden, D., & Fraser, B. M. (1996). Universal Access: Electronic Resources in Libraries. Seattle, WA: DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) at the University of Washington. Church, C. (1992). The Handbook of Assistive Technology. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Coen, R. & Hogenbloom, M. (1998). Web-Enabled Applications Programmed on the Net: How to Become a Web-Enabled Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cook, A. (2002). Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Cunningham, C. & Coombs, N. (1997). Information Access and Adaptive Technology. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press. Dundas, P. (1994). An Enabling Vision: Open Learning and Students with a Disability. Bedford Park, Australia: Open Learning Technology Corporation. Enders, A. & Hall, M. (Eds.). (1990). Assistive Technology Sourcebook. Washington DC: RESNA Press. Flippo, K. (1995). Assistive Technology: A Resource for School, Work, and Community. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes. Gadbow, N. F. & Du Bois, D. A. (1998). Adult Learners with Special Needs: Strategies and Resources for Postsecondary Education and Workplace Training. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Appendix B 227 Gardner, J. (1993). Developing Staff Competencies for Supporting People with Developmental Disabilities: An Orientation Handbook. Baltimore: P.H. Brookes Publishing Company. Garlock, K. L. & Piontek, S. (1996). Building the Service-Based Library Web Site: A Step-By-Step Guide to Design and Options. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Garlock, K. L. & Piontek, S. (1999). Designing Web Interfaces to Library Services and Resources. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Gavin, J. & Scherer M. (1996). Evaluating, Selecting, and Using Appropriate Assistive Technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers. Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments. New York: Spon Press. Hutchinson, J. (1998). Breaking Down Barriers: Access to Further and Higher Education for Visually Impaired Students. Cheltenham: Stanley Thorne in Collaboration with the Royal Academy for the Blind. Kailes, J. & Jones, D. (1993). A Guide to Planning Accessible Meetings. Houston, TX: Independent Living Research Utilization. Kaye, H. S. (2001). Disability Watch Volume 2: The Status of People with Disabilities in the United States. Oakland, CA: Disability Rights Advocate. Kovacs, D. & Kovacs, M. (1997). The Cybrarian Guide to Developing Successful Internet Programs and Services. New York: Neal Schuhman. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. New York: Routledge. Lazzaro, J. (1995). Adapting PCs for Disabilities. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Lazzaro, J. J. (2001). Adaptive Technologies for Learning and Work Environments (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Lebovich, W. L. (1993). Design for Dignity. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Libery (The National Council for Civil Liberties). (1999). Liberating Cyberspace: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and the Internet. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press. Lubinski, R. (1997). Communication Technologies for the Elderly: Vision, Hearing and Speech. San Diego CA: Singular Publishers. Lucas Walling, L., & Irwin, M. M. (1995). Information Services for People with Developmental Disabilities: The Library Manager’s Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Mackenzie, L. (Ed.). (1992). The Complete Directory for People With Disabilities: A One-Step Sourcebook for Individuals and Professionals. Detroit, MI: Gale Research. 228 Appendix B Mann, W. & Lane, J. (1995). Assistive Technology for Persons with Disabilities. Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association. Mates, B. (2000). Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible to All. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. McAlees, D. C. (1998). Achieving Successful Employment Outcomes with the Use of Assistive Technology. Memomomie, WI: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute. McCormick, J. (1994). Computers and the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Manager’s Guide. New York: Windcrest. 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, American Library Association. McNulty, T. & Suvino, D. (1993). Access to Information: Materials, Technologies and Services for Print-Impaired Readers. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Mendelson, S. (1987). Financing Adaptive Technology: A Guide to Sources and Strategies for Blind and Visually Impaired Users. New York: Smiling Interface. Metz, R. E. & Junion-Metz, G. (1996). Using the World Wide Web and Creating Homepages: A How-To-Do-It Manual. New York: Neal Schulman. Mihal, V. (Ed.). (1998). Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence: Applications in Robotics, User Interfaces, and Natural Language Processing. Berlin, NY: Springer. Nelson, J. (Ed.). (1994). The Disabled, the Media, and the Information Age. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Nielson, J. (2001). Designing Web Usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders. Norlin, E. (2002). Usability Testing for Library Web Sites: A Hands-On Guide. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Paciello, M. (2000). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books. Pearrow, M. (2000). Web Site Usability. Rockland, MS: Charles River Media, Inc. Peloquin, A. (1994). Barrier-Free Residential Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Preiser, W. F. (2001). Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Raman, T. (1997). Auditory User Interfaces. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Roulstone, A. (1998). Enabling Technology: Disabled People, Work, and New Technology. Buckingham, VA: Open University Press. Salamon, K. (1994). Federal Disability Law and Distance Learning. Washington, DC: Instructional Communications Council. Scherer, M. (2000). Living in the State of Stuck: How Assistive Technology Appendix B 229 Impacts the Lives of People with Disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Scherer, M. (2002). Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Sharpless Smith, S. (2001). Web-Based Instruction: A Guide for Libraries. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Shin, L. (Ed.). (1998). Learning Disabilities Sourcebook. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics. Steinfeld, E. & Danford, G. S. (1999). Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and Rehabilitation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Traw, J. L. (2000). Library Web Site Policies (CLIP Notes #29). Chicago, IL: College Library Information Packet Committee, College Library Section, Association of College and Research Libraries. Walling, L. L. & Irwin, M. M. (Eds.). (1995). Information Services for People with Developmental Disabilities: The Library Manager’s Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Weinschenck, S. (2000). Designing Effective Speech Interfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wilkoff, W. L. & Abed, L. W. (1994). Practicing Universal Design: An Interpretation of the ADA. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold. Government Documents The following Web-based government documents were all retrieved on March 31, 2002. This information is not listed in each citation. Access Board. (2000). Board Issues Standards for Electronic and Information Technology. Washington, DC: Access Board. Retrieved from http:// www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 104 STAT. 327. Retrieved from http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/statute.html. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1990). Washington DC Department of Justice (DOJ). Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/publicat.htm. Assistive Technology: A Selected Bibliography. (1992). Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. (2000). Oversight Hearing on “The Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Private Internet Sites. February 9. Retrieved from http:// 230 Appendix B www.house.gov/judiciary/2.htm. Covey, D. (2002). Usage and Usability Assessment: Library Practices and Concerns. Washington: Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources. Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999187.pdf. Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 31, 2002, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999046.pdf. McNeil, J.M. (1997). Americans with Disabilities: 1994–95. Current Population Reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ prod/3/97pubs/p70-61.pdf. Murphy, H. J. (1991). The Impact of Exemplary Technology-Support Programs on Students with Disabilities. Washington, DC: National Council On Disability. National Academy Press. (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Brandt, Jr., E. N. & Pope, A. M. (Eds.), Committee on Assessing Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Division of Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Council on Disability. (1993). Study on the Financing of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Individuals with Disabilities: A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC. National Council on Disability. National Council on Disability. (1996). Access to the Information Superhighway and Emerging Information Technologies by People with Disabilities. Washington, DC: National Council on disability. National Council on Disability. (1998). Access to Multimedia Technology by People with Sensory Disabilities. Washington, DC. National Council on Disability. National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal Policy Barriers to Assistive Technology. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. National Council on Disability. (NCD). (2001). The Accessible Future. Wash- Appendix B 231 ington, DC: NCD. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/accessiblefuture.html. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (ED/OSERS). (1995). The Journey to Independence Through Assistive Technology. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Department of Human Resources, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation; Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (ED/OSERS). National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Federal Laboratory Consortium. (1999). Critical Technology Assessment: US Assistive Technology Industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Federal Laboratory Consortium. OCR. (1996). Letter Docket No. 09-95-2206. San Francisco, CA: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Retrieved from http:// www.icdri.org/sjsu.htm. OCR. (1997). Letter Docket No. 09-97-2002. San Francisco, CA: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Retrieved from http:// www.icdri.org/csula.htm. Section 504. (1973). Pub.L. No. 93-112 § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794. (1994). Retrieved 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 from http://www.access-board.gov/enforcement/ rehabact-text.htm. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Critical Technical Assessment: U.S. Assistive Technology Industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/. 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 from http:// ocfo.ed.gov/coninfo/clibrary/software.htm. U.S. Department of Education. (no date). Q & A. Title IV—Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division (1996, September 9). Letter #204 from Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division to Senator Harkin. Retrieved from http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/cltr204.txt. U.S. Department of Education. California Office for Civil Rights. (1998). Letter 232 Appendix B (Case Docket No. 09-97-6001) from Stefan Rosenzweig, Regional Director to Chancellor Nussbaum, January 22. Retrieved from http:// www.janejarrow.com/public_library/ocr_lof/nussbaum.html. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Q&A: Title IV—Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 Section 508: Electronic and Information Technology. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/archive/deptofed.html. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. (1994). Computer, Technology, and Disability [Microform]: Tech Act: Reprint from Information from Health. Washington, DC: Health Resource Center, American Council on Education: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State Department of Human Resources, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation; Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education—Educational Research and Improvement Office. The Future is in the Margins: The Role of Technology and Disability In Educational Reform…Ed451624… U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm. 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 from http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/access/ waddell.htm. Walden, B., Rowland, C., & Bohman, P. (2000). Year One Report. Learning Anytime Anywhere for Anyone. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Education, FIPSE/LAAP. Wolfenden, D. (1995). Educators’ Commonly Asked Questions About Assistive Technology Devices and Services. Augusta, ME: Maine State Department of Education, Division Special Services.; Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (ED/OSERS). Articles Ashton, T. (2000). Assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 37–39. Association of College and Research Libraries. Distance Learning Section. Guidelines Committee (1998). Guidelines for distance learning library services. College and Research Libraries News, 59(9), 689–694. Association of College and Research Libraries. Distance Learning Section. Appendix B 233 Guidelines Committee. (2000). Guidelines for distance learning library services. College and Research Libraries News, 61(11), 1023–1029. Beigel, A. (2000). Assistive technology assessment: More than the device. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(4), 237–243. Berliss, J. (1994). Boon or bust. Access to electronic publishing by individuals using adaptive computer technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 753–59. Blake, S. (2000). Universal access, the ADA, and your library Web page. Arkansas Libraries, 57(1), 19–24. Brennan, J. K. (1998). Assistive technology: It takes a team. Delta Kappa Gamma, 64(2), 24–28. Bricout, J. (2001). Making computer-generated education responsive to the accommodation needs of students with disabilities. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(2), 267–81. Brittain, K. D. (1995). Persons with disabilities can and do surf the net! Colorado Libraries, 21(Fall). Broown, C. (1992). Assistive technology computers and persons with disabilities. Communications of the ACM, 35(May), 36–45. Brown, P. (2000). Universal access to Web information. Illinois Libraries, 82(3), 160–166. Bryant, B. & Crews, P. (1998). The technology-related assistance to individuals with disabilities act: relevance to individuals with learning disabilities and their advocates. Learning Disabilities, 31, 4–15. Bryant, D. P. & Bryant, D. R. (1998). Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Learning Disabilities, 31, 41–54. Burgstahler, S., Comden, D., & Fraser, B.M. (1997). Universal access: Designing and evaluating web sites for accessibility. Choice, 34, 19–22. Byerley, S. (2001). Usability testing and students with visual disabilities: Building electronic curb cuts into a library Web site. Colorado Libraries, 27(3), 22–24. Carpenter, S. A. (1996). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodation in Ohio. College & Research Libraries, 57(November), 555–566. Casey, C.A. (1999). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equal opportunity Web sites. Information Technology and Libraries, 18(1), 22–25. Chiang, Y. P., Bassi, L. J., & Javitt, J. C. (1992). Federal budgetary costs of blindness. The Milbank Quarterly, 70, 319–340. Coombs, N. (2000). Enabling technologies: Untangling your Web. Library Hi Tech, 18(1), 93–96. Cravotta, N. (2001). Technology for disabled users: Lessons learned. EDN 46(12), 59–70. 234 Appendix B Deines-Jones, C. (1996). Access to library Internet services for patrons with disabilities: Pragmatic considerations for developers. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 61–62. Descy, D. (1997). Accessible Web page design. TechTrends for Leaders in Education & Training, 42(6), November/December, 3–6. Dixon, J. M. (1996). Levelling the road ahead: Guidelines for the creation of WWW pages accessible to blind and visually handicapped users. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 65–68. Dorman, S. M. (1998). Assistive technology benefits for students with disabilities. School Health, 68(3), 120–123. Duhaney, L. (2000). Assistive technology: Meeting the needs of learners with disabilities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 393– 401. Edyburn, D. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24. Flowers, C. P., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R.F. (1999). Accessibility of special education program home pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 21–26. Foster, A. (2001). Making Web sites Work for people with disabilities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(21), February 2, A30. Fraser, B. M., Comden, D., & Burgstahler, S. (1998). Including users with disabilities: Designing library Web sites for accessibility. Choice, 35, 35–37. Goldberg, L. & Freed, G. (1998). Making multimedia accessible on the World Wide Web, 8, 127–132. Guthrie, S. A. (2000). Making the World Wide Web accessible to all students. Journal of Mass Communication Educator, 55(1), 14–23. Hansen, M.B. (1999). Designing Web pages for people with disabilities. The Unabashed Librarian, (111), 19. Hennen Jr., T. J. (1999). Great American public libraries: HAPLR ratings, round two. American Libraries, 30(September), 64–68. Jobe, M. M. (1999). Guidelines on Web accessibility for the disabled. Colorado Libraries, 25(3), 45–46. Kautzman, A. M. (1998). Virtuous, virtual access: Making Web pages accessible to people with disabilities. Searcher, 6(6), 42–49. Kemp, C. (2001). Funding assistive technology and related health services in service settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(3), 189–92. Kessler, D. & Keefe, B. (1999). Going the distance. American School and University, 71(11), 44–46. Kester, D. (1999). Measuring the sight of your Web site. North Carolina Libraries, 57(3), 114–117. Appendix B 235 Kim-Rupnow, W. (2001). Implications for improving access and outcomes for individuals with disabilities in postsecondary distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 25–40. Kinder, S. (2001). Web page accessibility for users with disabilities. Kentucky Libraries, 65(4), 21–25. Lescher, J. (2000). Designing web sites for the blind. Econtent, April/May, 23(2), 4. Lescher, J. F. (2000). Designing Web sites for the blind. EContent, 23(2), 14–23. Lewis, R. B. (1998). Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today’s realities and tomorrow’s promises. Learning Disabilities, 31, 16–26. Lilly, E. B. & Van Fleet, C. (1999). Wired but not connected: Accessibility of academic library home pages. The Reference Librarian, (67/68), 5–28. Lilly, E. B. & Van Fleet, C. (2000). Measuring the accessibility of public library home ages. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 40(2), 156–163. Lueck, A. (2001). Selecting assistive technology for greater independence. Review, 33(1), 1–33. Lyman, M. & Mather, M. (1998). Equal learning opportunity: Assistive technology for students with special needs. Technology and Learning, 19, 55–60. Mace, N (1996). Screen readers. Technology opens the way to the workplace for people with vision impairments. Mainstream, 20(5), 32–33. Mates, B. T. (2001). Accessibility guidelines for electronic resources; making the Internet accessible for people with disabilities. Library Technology Reports, 37(4), 1–83. Mendle, J. (1995). Library services for persons with disabilities. The Reference Librarian, (49/50), 105–121. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. (1998). New review of NIDRR grantees Web sites. The Research Exchange, 3(3), 12–14. Noble, S. (in press). Web access and the law: A public policy framework. Library Hi Tech, 20(4). Paciello, M. (1996a). Making the World Wide Web accessible for the blind and visually impaired. Florida Libraries, 39(January/February), 5. Paciello, M. (1996b). Making the Web accessible for the deaf, hearing, and mobility impaired. Florida Libraries, 39(July/August), 83. Peek, R. (1999). New devices are offering the Web “to-go.” Information Today, 16(4), 46–47. Peek, R. & Hane, P. J. (1999). Access for everyone—Sort of. Information Today, June, 16(6), 48. Polanka, S. & O’Gorman, J. (2001). Guidelines for creating accessible Web pages. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 5(3), 51–57. Raskind, M. H. & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities, 31, 236 Appendix B 27–40. Roatch, M. A. (1992). High tech and library access for people with disabilities. Public Libraries, 31(March/April), 88–98. Rouse, V. (1999). Making the Web accessible. Computers in Libraries, 19(6), 48–50. Rowland, C. (1999). University-affiliated programs face Web accessibility issues. CPD News, 22(3), 1–5. Schmetzke, A. (2001a). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35–49. Schmetzke, A. (2001b). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Science, Fall, 47–67. Slatin, J. (2001). The art of ALT: Toward a more accessible Web. Computers and Composition, 18, 73–81. Smith, S. J. & Jones, E. D. (1999). The obligation to provide assistive technology: Enhancing general curriculum access. Law and Education, 28(2), 247–265. Tillett, L. S. (2001). Web accessibility ripples through it. Internet Week, 848, 1. Valenza, J. (2000). Surfing blind. Library Journal, Fall, Net Connect, 125(14), 34. Vanderheiden, G. (1998). Cross-modal access to current and next generation Internet—Fundamental and advanced topics in Internet accessibility. Technology and Disability, 8. Williamson, K. (2001). The role of the Internet for people with disabilities: Issues of access and equity for public libraries. Australian Library Journal, 50(2), 157–174. Wolfe, K. (YEAR). Responding to a common concern about hiring people with visual impairments: Access to print information. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 93(2) 110–113. Woodbury, M. (1998). Defining Web ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 203–212. Young, J. R. (1998). For students with disabilities, the Web can be like a classroom without a ramp. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(27), A31. Web Publications Access Board Questions and Answers about Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1998 (2000). Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/ sec508brief.htm. Accessible Society E-Letter. (2001). Even “accessible” websites remain difficult for people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/ e_letters/eletter103001.htm. American Library Association. (2000). Access to electronic information, services, and networks: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Chicago, ALA, Appendix B 237 Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/eletacc.html. American Library Association. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies. (2001). Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy, January 16. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ascla/access_policy.html. An overview of telecommunications equipment distribution programs. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf2000/proceedings/0208Baquis.html. Arachne Labs. (2001). Arachne WWW Browser. Retrieved from http:// arachne.browser.org/. Berliss, J. (1991). Checklists for implementing accessibility in computer laboratories at colleges and universities. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Trace Research and Development Center. Retrieved from http://trace.wisc.edu/ docs/accessible_labs/campus.htm?distance+education. Berliss, J. (1996). Web accessibility guidelines design of accessible web pages. Retrieved from http://www.infouse.com/diabilitydata/guidelines96.html. Bohman, P. (no date). Universal Design and Web Access Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com. Bosher, P. & Brewer, J. Alternative Web Browsing. (2001). July 5. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Browsing#1. British Broadcasting Corporation. (1999). BBC Education Betsie Site, December 13. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/index.html. California Community Colleges. Chancellor’s Office. (1999). Distance Education: Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/ dlguidelines/final%20dl%20guidelines.htm. California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office. (2000). Guidelines for Producing Instructional and Other Printed Materials in Alternate Media for Persons with Disabilities, April. Retrieved from http://www.htctu.fhda. edu/amguidelines/am33000.htm. California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office. (2001). Memorandum: New federal regulations implementing section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Legal opinion M 01-17, June 11. Retrieved from http:// www.occ.cccd.edu/~hightech/M_01-17.pdf. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999). Core Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, May 5. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#textequivalent. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (2000). HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, November 6. Retrieved from http://www. w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#long-descriptions. Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind. (2001). Columbia lighthouse for the blind— 238 Appendix B Independence is our vision, November 19. Retrieved from http://www.clb.org/ Coonin, B. (2001). Enabling scientists: Serving sci-tech library users with disabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Fall(32). Retrieved from http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/01-fall/article1.html. Craven, J. (2000). Electronic access for all: Awareness in creating accessible web sites for the university library. Disability and Information Systems in Higher Education (DISinHE). Retrieved from http://www.disinhe.ac.uk/library/ article.asp?id=34. Defense Research Establishment. TelWeb: A Multimedia Information Infrastructure. (1999). Retrieved from http://www.drev.dnd.ca/fr/upload/pdf/ telwe141.pdf. Federal Acquisition Regulations Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2001). Final FAR Rule for implementing Section 508 of the Rehab Act electronic and information technology accessibility for persons with disabilities .36 CFR Part 1194, April 25. Retrieved from http:// www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=13. Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., & Barile, M. (2001). Computer and Information Technologies: Resources for the Postsecondary Education of Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from Adaptech, Dawson College: http:// www.adaptech.org/pubs/olt01. Flavell, A. J. (1994). Use of ALT Texts in IMGS. Retrieved from http:// ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-text.html. The Growing Digital Divide in Access for People with Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation in the Digital Economy. (No date). Retrieved from http://www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm. Gunderson, J. (No date). World Wide Web Browser Access Recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund/access-browsers.html. Henderson, C. (1999). College Freshmen with Disabilities: A Biennial Statistical Profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/CollegeFresh.pdf. Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http:/ /www.nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999187.pdf. Jackson-Sanborn, E., Odess-Harnish, K., & Warren, N. (2001). Web accessibility: A study of ADA compliance. Technical Reports. TR-2001-05, May 30. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from the School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina Website. Retrieved from http:// ils.unc.edu/ils/research/reports/accessibility.pdf. Appendix B 239 Lynx Developers. Lynx information. Retrieved from http://lynx.browser.org/. Meijer, P. (1996). The voice—Seeing with sound. Retrieved from http:// www.seeingwithsound.com/voice.htm. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2000). MIT Disabilities Resources: Universal Design and Web Accessibility. Received from http://web.mit.edu/ ada/waccess.html#policy. Minow, M. (1999). Does your library’s web page violate the Americans with Disabilities Act? California Libraries, 9(4), 8–9. Retrieved from h t t p : / / www.atnet.org/articles/ADA-library.html. Nielsen Norman Group Usability Conference. (2001). Beyond ALT Text: Making the Web Easy to Use for Users with Disabilities. Retrieved from http:/ /www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility. North Carolina State University. (2001). Assistive technology in higher education survey report, September. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/it/dss/ survey_report.html. Ormes, S. & Peacock, I. (1999). Virtually inaccessible? Making the library virtually accessible. LTWorld, February. Retrieved from http://www.sbu. ac.uk/litc/lt/1999/news1317.html. Raman, T.V. (1997). Netsurfing without a monitor. Scientific American Online. Retrieved from http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397raman.html. Rosmaita, G. J. (1997). Blynx: Speech-Friendly Lynx Help Files, September 16. Retrieved from http://leb.net/blinux/blynx/. Schmetzke, A. (2001c). Online distance education—“Anytime, anywhere” but not for everyone. Information Technology and Disabilities, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv07n2/contents.htm. Secret, A. & Sasse, H. (Ed.). Agora: Retrieving WWW Documents Through Mail. Retrieved from http://www.eng.dmu.ac.uk/Agora/Help.txt. Sullivan, T. & Manning, K. (1996). Could Helen Keller Read Your Page? All Things Web. Retrieved from http://www.pantos.org/atw/35412.html. Taylor, H. (2000). How the Internet is improving the lives of Americans with disabilities.Harris Poll#30. Retrieved from the http:// www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=93. University of Washington, Department of Ophthalmology. (2000). Statistics on Blindness and Blinding Diseases in the United States. Retrieved from http:/ /depts.washington.edu/ophthweb/statistics.html. Valdes, L. (1998). Accessibility on the Internet. Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disacc00.htm. Vatton, I. (2001). Amaya Overview, August 24. Retrieved from http:// www.w3.org/Amaya/Amaya.html. 240 Appendix B W3C. (2001). HyperText Markup Language Activity Statement, October 26. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity. Waddell, C. D. (1999a). The growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation. Proceeding, the U.S. government for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Understanding the Digital Economy Conference, Retrieved from http:// www.digitaleconomy.gov. Waddell, C. D. (1999b). Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm. Waddell, C. D. & 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. Yale University Library. (2000). Web Accessibility Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC/spd2.html#s3.eb site. Appendix C 241 Appendix C Pull and Push: A Select Webibliography of Products Serving Section 508 Alice Bedard-Voorhees Community Colleges of Colorado Online, USA INTRODUCTION Without a doubt, Section 508 has brought corporate attention to accessibility (also called digital inclusion) with the mandate that IT products bought with federal dollars needed to be accessibility compliant. While users with total hearing or vision loss are typically associated with accessibility, many more users are impacted to lesser degrees, including those with less dramatic hearing or vision losses, mobility problems and cognitive processing disabilities. Earlier, U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Departments of Commerce statistics show that as many as one fifth of Americans exhibit a disability, with one tenth requiring personal assistance in carrying out daily activities (WebCT, 2001). In learning and training environments, 508 access spans computer operating systems, computer software, Internet browsers, electronic instructional platforms, and the Web-design of learning content and student services information. Additionally, the interface with adaptive technologies has an increased importance, because it may be a critical element in the user’s access. Most recently, the interface of devices such as telephones and computers has added a new dimension and opportunity for digital access. This Web-bibliography is organized by product categories, with the last section providing resources for selecting vendors. Its intent is to highlight features that can assist current learners, help formulate appropriate questions with vendors and save time locating vendors who are responsive to 508. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 242 Bedard-Voorhees The inclusion of accessibility standards in Web design, industry certifications and curriculum may be of interest to postsecondary institutions as they consider their own IT curriculum and IT staff development. In no way is this list meant to be complete. Entering the subject categories of this Web-bibliography into search engines might be useful in locating additional products. Also to be noted is that rapid response to 508 may mean that the product is an early-generation that may not fully comply to 508 but that progress has begun. Initially, the word “corporate” was part of this title—most products here were created by “for-profit” companies. A small number of products by nonprofits are listed here because they respond to 508 and some have purchasing costs. A small number of well-recommended, at-no-cost products are also listed, because they were recommended by some reputable sources and serve as points of comparison. What I have learned is that such a review easily generates more questions, such as, “Are FTP clients responsive to voice activation?” To this end, additions to these resources are most welcome in e-mails to [email protected]. OPERATING SYSTEMS • • • Apple. MacIntosh™ has included screen magnifers, keyboard options, textreading capabilities in English and Spanish and speech recognition of commands beginning with 7.x, 8.x, 9.x, to its latest iteration. The site includes free downloads of these features if the user can no longer find installation software. There are charts that match the software/device solution to the user difficulty as well: http://www.apple.com/disability/easyaccess.html#text. Unix™ and Linux. A considerable number of accessibility products have been created and can be located through this site: http://trace.wisc.edu/linux/ current.html#hardsynth. Windows™. When clicking on Programs, the first item in the Accessories menu is “Accessibility Features” and wizards to configure the computer to hearing, visual and mobility needs. The site details such options for various versions and impairments. XP now includes text reader software. Windows 2000 and ME include screen magnifiers and on-screen keyboards for use with joysticks or pointing devices. VPAT (508 Vendor) forms are also posted Microsoft products: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/ default.htm. Appendix C 243 INTERNET BROWSERS • • Netcom. The Netscape™ user can select settings to change font sizes and colors for viewing Web pages. Netscape 4 or higher is required for use with text readers: http://www.ala.org/editions/samplers/mates/ch3.html. Microsoft. The Microsoft IE™ user can select Control Panel settings that respond to vision needs, including color, font size and contrast. IE 4 or higher is required for use with text readers: http://www.ala.org/editions/samplers/ mates/ch3.html. ELECTRONIC LEARNING PLATFORMS Each of these vendors are currently working with text-reader navigation and the interface with other assistive technologies. The content creator (instructor/ designer) is still responsible for meeting compliance for the course content placed in the particular online class or training, however. • Ecollege. ECollege offers a help-desk trained for accessibility questions, most items are readable with Jaws and Windows screen readers, and the multimedia are captioned: http://www.ecollege.com/access/fact.html. • WebCt. WebCt™ provides alt tags for its images and optional frames for the TD and chat. They provide a large amount of information to users for creating accessible content: http://www.Webct.com. • Blackboard. The basic adaptations include text alternatives for graphics and other multimedia formats, independent from style sheets. Blackboard also prompts the creator of content to provide text equivalents for nontext elements: http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/access/bb508.cgi. • A second document stresses that a browser that can be used with a textreader is necessary for accessible viewing of Blackboard, and that the html content needs to meet W3/WAI standard: http://www.uwic.ac.uk/ltsu/ 5min_guide_module_accessible.htm. • Macromedia. When the Snow Center at the University of Toronto reviewed Lotus Learning Space™ in 1999, the product received the highest compliance marks: frames are used correctly and alt texts are easy to put in. Not all graphics have alt tags, however: http://snow.utoronto.ca/initiatives/crseval/ lspace.htm. • CourseInfo. The 1999 University of Toronto listed this item at the bottom of four interfaces for accessibility. The survey said alt texts and links were lacking, many frames were used and they did not navigate well in the reader and accessibility documents were not available. Users are advised to ask the vendor about recent fixes: http://snow.utoronto.ca/initiatives/crseval/lspace.htm. 244 Bedard-Voorhees • WBT. The 1999 University of Toronto survey of Top Class™ stated that alt texts were provided, frames could be turned off, but that accessibility documents were not provided. A person would want to ask specifics of the current version 5, as the site search does not produce accessibility documents: http://snow.utoronto.ca/initiatives/crseval/lspace.htm;http:// www.wbtsystems.com/products/topclass_new.html\. CONTENT PROVIDERS Initially, workplace content providers and academic providers were separated by the audiences considered unique. Some for credit courses now incorporate the workplace content to complement total course content. While there are other content providers, these two addressed accessibility. Searches in this category produced few documents. Before purchasing content, it would be advisable to discuss what features of the content make it accessible (alt tags, table formats, captioning, interface with adaptive technologies). • DPEC/Mindleaders. This is an online training provider who delivers courses in IT, general business skills, small business and personal computer operations, preparation for IT certifying exams and insurance credentialing. Their 500 courses are now accessible for screen readers: http:// www.mindleaders.com/news/searchaccess.html. • SMARTFORCE: Smartforce reports it has brought on a consultant company to custom-respond to customize their courses for accessibility issues. This appears to be customization by contract for 508 customers, rather than the general adaptation of the online learning products: http://www.smartforce.com/ corp/marketing/about_sf/press_released_01/jan_24/02.htm. WEB-PAGE CHECKERS • • Total Page Reviews for Compliance: Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). Bobby™ is a software for checking Web pages for access compliance. It is based on W3 and 508 standards. Both single-use and server licenses are available: http:// www.cast.org/Bobby/IconGuidelines317.cfm. University of Toronto and University of Wisconsin Trace Center. A-Prompt: Web-Review Software. Free. Provides a review of Web pages and allows quick fixes. Includes English and French versions. http:// aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca. Appendix C 245 • • • • • Macromedia. Dreamweaver™ has a “Read for Accessibility” extension available at their site: http://www.macromedia.com/resources/special/ solutions_kit/accessibility.html. SSB Technologies. SSB will check and fix errors for the user or sell the user the software. In-Focus™ site checker identifies compliance errors, provides information on how to fix them and documents fixes: http:// www.ssbtechnologies.com/products/InFocus.php. WebAble, Inc. Webable provides a Web-based check service as well as other adaptive devices and information. http://www.accessibilitymonitor.com. Text Only: Lynx. Lynx is a free text browser that can be used to check the plain-text versions of Web pages; it serves most Windows™, Unix, Linux and Mac: http://lynx.browser.org/. David T. Pierson. Wanna-Be is a free text-browser/checker for Macs: http:/ /mindstory.com/wb2/. WEB SITES AND RELATED TOOLS Web sites consist of .html, .PDF files, images, captioned multimedia and CD/ DVD links. • Adobe. This page provides directions for Web designers on how to make .pdf documents accessible at http://access.adobe.com/booklet1.html. It also details an accessible Adobe 5.0 and provides a link to the download:http:// access.adobe.com/features.html. • Captioning Web. This nonprofit provides listings of hardware and software for captioning. http://www.captions.org/softlinks.cfm. • Corda, Inc. The National Cancer Institute used Popchart Xpress™ software to create pop-up texts for their massive numbers of graphs and charts. http:/ /www.corda.com/accessibility/. • Leapfrog Productions. Ccaption-DV™ and Ccaption-Nle™ provide captioning for Macintosh and Windows for DVD, Quick-Time, Real Video and image files. http://www.ccaption.com/nccswversions.html. • Macromedia. The Dreamweaver™ site provides templates, tutorials, and extensions for use with the Web-authoring software. It helps the designer quickly strip code from html WORD documents. (An excess code can stall text readers.). The software provides windows and help for entering alt tags. http://www.macromedia.com/resources/special/solutions_kit/samples/ access_designing.html. 246 Bedard-Voorhees • Microsoft. The Microsoft Frontpage™ site provides 508 guides and offers a free verification tool for registered users. http://www.microsoft.com/frontpage/ using/accessibility/default.htm. National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). MAGpie is a beta product for captioning in Quicktime, SML and Microsoft’s SAMI. http:// ncam.wgbh.org/Webaccess/magpie/. Netscape. Netscape Composer™ allows the easy creation of alt tags from the “Insert Image” choice, but it does not allow captioning of tables and the placement of extended text descriptions. http://www.rehab.uiuc.edu/cita/ composer/composer_pc.html. • • ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS IN CURRICULUM AND WEB-DESIGNER CERTIFICATIONS • • • IT Certifying Agencies now Issue Questions on some Industry Certifying Exams. The World Organization of Webmasters (WOW): The Web Professional Exam now incorporates accessibility and design questions into their certifying exam: http://www.joinwow.org. The Curriculum for Certified Internet Webmasters (CIW). The Site Designer Certification includes designing for accessibility in its curriculum: http:// www.ciwcertified.com/catalog/catalog.asp?comm=home&llm=11. Free curriculum: The land grant institutions codesign training for their campuses and share it. It is possible to write to them and obtain permission to use their course “Website Accessibility”: http://www.lgta.org/accessibility/ index.html. ASSISTIVE DEVICES, SOFTWARE, AND SERVICES • • • Colligio, Inc. Voicebook™ allows access to any digital document via telephone and has indexing features so the user can just call up a part of document rather than having to listen to the entire item. Call 416-736-9731 for a demonstration; ask for extension 24580. This product is associated with Colligio at http://www.ultimatebook.com. Inclusive Technologies, Inc. Provides adaptive hardware and software (switches, keyboards, mice alternative, voice recognition-this is an extensive catalog). Some menus organize products by age groups, some by disabilities, some by learning and communication functions. http://www.inclusivetlc.com/ catalog/index.shtml. Freedom Scientific, Inc. Jaws is a known text reader. This site contains a beta- Appendix C 247 • • • • • • • version for download, information about an MP3 add on, text and audio tutorials and additional programs. http://www.freedomscientific.com/ fs_products/software_jaws.asp. Benetech. Bookshare is a subscription service that exists for users who have a documented visual disability. They are able to pay a small subscription fee and download books and software for listening to the books for either a personal or organizational subscription. This nonprofit has negotiated copyrights to using the books for the sake of access. Volunteers help scan in books. http://www.bookshare.org/Web/SupportFAQ.html. IBM. ViaVoice™ is voice recognition software that produces text onto the screen when the user speaks. http://www.uwic.ac.uk/ltsu/ 5min_guide_module_accessible.htm. Learning Needs. The company is provider for adaptive technologies for educators and was listed at the Apple site. http://www.learningneeds.com/. Learnout and Hauspie. Dragon Naturally Speaking™ is a voice-to-text program for converting spoken words into printed characters. http:// www.lhsl.com/naturallyspeaking/. Microsoft. Microsoft provides a glossary for a variety of adaptive technologies. It also provides a list of products that interface with Windows™: http:/ /www.microsoft.com/enable/at/types.htm. A software to assist the interface between Microsoft systems and adaptive devices is available: http:// msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/nhp/ Default.asp?contentid=28000544. Synapse Adaptive. Synapse offers a head tracking device—a person uses head movements to move the cursor on the screen. Additional devices such as puff pointers and voice recognition to be used across all platforms are also available. http://www.unixspeech.com/prchead.htm. Vanguard, Inc. VANGARD™ is listed as both a service and a product at the 508 vendor site. It allows for voice navigation of Web content using the computer or from a telephone utilizing voice XML. http:// www.voiceWebservices.com/company/vangard/default.htm. See the PDF brochure: http://www.voiceWebservices.com/brochures/publisher_ brochure.pdf. SOURCES FOR VENDOR SELECTION • 508 Vendor Review, U.S. Government 508 Purchasing Site, and How to Purchase 508 Products: This site contains lists of vendors who voluntarily fill out the Product Accessibility Template, place it on their company Web site 248 • • • Bedard-Voorhees and file it with the 508 site. Over 300 vendors have registered thus far. The government does not certify the vendor but wants to encourage voluntary conformance and help government agencies locate likely vendor matches. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=2. The voluntary vendor form appears in the next entry. The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). Voluntary Product Accessibility Template. This form lists the 508 standards for a given category of product. The vendor can list it on the site and also register with the 508.gov site. Though the government is not certifying vendors, the value of the template is that by filling it out, the vendor issues a statement of compliance. An organization could ask for the completion of the template as part of the bid/ purchasing process, whether or not the vendor was listed on the 508 site. http:/ /www.itic.org/policy/vpat.html. City of New York. This site shares the 508 purchasing guides published by the City of New York for its own agencies. http://www.resna.org/taproject/ policy/initiatives/508/508Stateactions.htm#ny. World Wide Web Association (W3). This is THE expert source around all things 508 and updates on such information. W3 list the WAI guidelines used in 508 compliance. http://www.w3.org. REFERENCES Carvin, A. (2002). Listserv post about bookshare.org. DEOS-Listserv, February 28. Culifer, B. (2002). World Organization of Webmasters (WOW). E-mail to Alice Bedard-Voorhees regarding WOW certifying exam, January 2. Harrison, L. (1999). Accessible Web-Based and Distance Education: Principles and Best Practices. http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/rd/library/papers/ accDistanceEducation.html. McCauley, C. (2001). Accessibility audit toolkit. Web Review, July. http:// www.Webreview.com/2001/07_27/Webauthors/index01.shtml. Powles, D. (2002). Listserv post about VoiceBook. Digital Divide Listserv, February 20. The Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund National Co-ordination Team. Open University. (2001). Models accessibility and explains features—the section about browsers is useful. http://www.ncteam.ac.uk/welcome/accessibility/#screen. WebCT. (2001). Universal Design and Accessibility Workshop Guide: Version 3.x. Vancouver: WebCT. Glossary 249 Glossary Access Board—Refers to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an independent federal agency, whose primary mission is to promote accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Access Board Standards—Regulations that set forth the requirements for accessible information, documentation and support for electronic and information technology (EIT). The standards became enforceable June 21, 2001. accessible content—Information, regardless of form, structure or presentation that can be easily retrieved by any person, regardless of ability. ADA—Acronym for the American Disabilities Act. adaptive technology—Hardware and/or software created or modified to enable people to use an interface with or without its standard input or output devices. alt tag—The HTML code used to provide an explanation of an image found on a Web document. When a screen reader receives the code, the description following the “alt” tag enables a screen reader to provide an auditory description of the image. The “alt” tag is used for IMG, INPUT and APPLET elements. alternate formats—Formats usable by people with disabilities. Examples include Braille, ASCII text, large print, recorded audio, and electronic formats that comply with the accessibility guidelines. alternate methods—Refers to a different means of providing information to people with disabilities. Examples of alternate methods include voice, fax, telecommunication relay service, TTY, closed-captioning and text-to-speech synthesis. American Disabilities Act (ADA)—U.S. public law enacted in 1990 that mandates reasonable accommodation and effective communication for people with disabilities. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. 250 Glossary applet—A JAVA program that is executed within a Web page. Application programming interface (API)—Refers to the standard way for programs to communicate with each other, including the operating system, and with input and output devices. This definition is identical to that listed in the Access Boards Standards at http://www.access-board.gov. Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)—Requires that buildings and facilities that are designed, constructed, or altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, comply with federal standards for physical accessibility. This definition is consistent with the National Council of Disability’s Guide to Disability Rights. ASCII art—Refers to text characters and symbols that are combined to create an image. An example would be the smiley emoticon J. assistive technology—Any item, equipment or product that is used to increase, maintain or improve functional abilities of individuals with disabilities. Assistive Technology Act—The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 provides federal aid to states for the development of programs that assist people with disabilities in the purchase of assistive technology and devices. backward compatible—Design features that continue to work with earlier versions of a language or software program. This definition is identical to the definition as listed in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Bobby—A validation tool developed by the Center of Applied Technology that checks the Web accessibility of Web documents. Braille display—Raises or lowers dot patterns on command from an electronic computer device. broken links—Hyperlinks that no longer retrieve the Web document or attached file. Clinger–Cohen Act (CCA)—Provides that the government information technology shop be operated exactly as an efficient and profitable business would be operated. Acquisition, planning and management of technology must be treated as a “capital investment.” This definition is identical to the definition as Glossary 251 stated in the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996. Closed captioning—A service for persons with hearing disabilities that translates television and video dialog into written words on the television screen. Closed captions normally do not appear as part of the video unless the viewer selects them to appear. CSS—Acronym for Cascading Style Sheets. CSS1 and CSS2 are the W3C official recommendations for style sheets. DECtalk—A speech synthesizer for computers. DECTalk is available as hardware and software options. Device-independent access—Refers to when the user can interact with the user agent or document with a preferred input or output device. disability—According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “The term disability means, with respect to an individual (a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such impairment.” Dynamic Web pages—Web pages assembled from content stored in databases. Electronic and information technology (EIT)—As defined by the Access Board, “includes information technology and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. The term electronic and information technology (EIT) includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications products, information kiosks and transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as copiers and fax machines. (See http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/). equivalent facilitation—Refers to the process of making peripheral accommodations that provide an equivalent or greater access to a product that does not meet the applicable technical provisions of Section 508. FAR—Acronym for Federal Acquisition Regulation. 252 Glossary FAR Rule—The second rule issued to implement section 508 amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to ensure that agency acquisitions of EIT comply with the Access Board’s standards. The entire FAR is found at 48 CFR Chapter 1 (http://www.arnet.gov/far/). Federal Information Technology Accessibility Initiative (FITAI)—An interdisciplinary partnership organized by the General Services Administration to serve as a resource on access to electronic and information technology and agency compliance with Section 508. File Transfer Protocol (FTP)—A set of rules for sending and receiving files between computers connected to the Internet. focus—The position on a computer screen where an action will take place. frames—A method to simulate multiple windows in a single Web page. graceful transformation—Refers to the ability of Web content to remain intact regardless of the presence of any constraints. Graceful transformation is one of the requirements for universal accessible Web design. HTML—Acronym for hypertext markup language, the primary language used to create Web pages. HTML 4.0 is recommended by W3C for use in the creation of accessible documents. HTML-Tidy—A utility device created by Dave Raggett that fixes and edits HTML errors into more concise markup language. A free copy of HTMLTidy can be retrieved at http://tidy.sourceforge.net. human-centered design—User interface design that focuses on the needs, preferences and requirements of the user, resulting in a product or process that is accessible and usable. hypertext—The ability to move in nonlinear fashion through an electronic document or file, or through a series of documents, by selecting specific words or pictures that have been “linked” to related words or files. IDEA—Acronym for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Glossary 253 image map—A graphic element stored on a Web page that contains regions that are hyperlinks. Use the “alt” tag with AREA or MAP elements. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—Requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs. This definition is consistent with the National Council of Disability’s Guide to Disability Rights. information technology—Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission or reception of data or information. This definition is identical to that in the Clinger–Cohen Act and the Access Board Standards. Information Technology Assistance & Training Center (ITTATC)— Government-sponsored resource that promotes the creation, use and dissemination of accessible telecommunications and information technology by providing technical assistance, training and informational resources. Invisible Web—Text pages, files or other information available on the World Wide Web that general-purpose search engines cannot retrieve due to technical and selection limitations. Java Accessibility API—The Java protocols designed to give assistive technology access to information in user interface objects. JavaScript—An object-oriented scripting language developed by Netscape Communications Corporation. linearized table—A table-rendering process where the contents of the cells become a series of paragraphs one after another. The paragraphs will occur in the same order as the cells are defined in the document source. This definition is identical to the definition listed in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. longdesc tag—Refers to the code used to distinguish more complex Web elements such as image maps and frames. This tag is often used with IMG, FRAME and links inside an OBJECT. 254 Glossary MathML—A markup language used to describe mathematical equations and expressions. Natural language processing (NRP)—Technique used by search engines to break up the search terms into a query the engine can translate for the retrieval of information. nontext equivalent—Refers to an element that provides information in a format different from written text. An example would include a voice-over in a multimedia presentation. Office of Civil Rights (OCR)—U.S. Department of Education office that is responsible for ensuring that all educational institutions comply with the requirements of all federal civil laws. The OCR has been instrumental in several cases regarding Web accessibility. open captions—Refers to text that is displayed automatically as part of a video, without having to be selected by the viewer. Peer-to-peer (P2P)—Two or more computers interacting directly with one another without going through a central server or directory. SAMI—Acronym for Synchronized Accessible Media Exchange. SAMI is a Microsoft file format specification that enables one to create a file with captioned information. screen magnification software—A software application that increases the size of text and graphics on a computer screen, making it easier to view. screen reader software—A software application that renders electronic information using a synthetic voice. Section 255—Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act establishes federal guidelines for access to telecommunication services, equipment, and customer premises equipment. The law requires that manufacturers and providers of telecommunications equipment services ensure that their products are accessible for people with disabilities. This definition is consistent with the National Council of Disability’s Guide to Disability Rights. Glossary 255 Section 504—States that “no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under” any program or activity that received federal funding or is conducted by any agency of the executive Branch or U.S. Postal Service. This definition is consistent with the National Council of Disability’s Guide to Disability Rights. Section 508—Establishes requirements for electronic and information technology developed, maintained, procured or used by the federal government. The provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that electronic and information technology must be accessible to people with disabilities. This definition is consistent with the National Council of Disability’s Guide to Disability Rights. Section 713—Aims to ensure that video services are accessible to individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. This provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to review closed-captioning requirements. Self-Contained, Closed Products—Products that have embedded software and are designed in such a manner that a user cannot easily attach or install assistive technology. An information kiosk is an example of a self-contained closed product. SGML—Acronym for Standard Generalized Markup Language. site map—The area of a Web site that provides a global view of the organization of the pages included in the Web site. All Web sites should provide a site map. SMIL—Acronym for Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language. SMIL 1.0 is the W3C recommendation for defining a markup language that describes Web multimedia. start tag—Markup that identifies the start of an element. style sheets—Used to define the style of elements on a Web page. telecommunications—The transmission between or among points specified by the user and the information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information sent and received. 256 Glossary Telecommunications Act of 1996—Legislation designed to promote the availability of telecommunications services and equipment to people traditionally underserved in telecommunications, including people with disabilities. Sections 255 and 713 of this law focus on provisions for people with disabilities. Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS)—A free service that enables persons with TTYs, individuals who use sign language and people who have speech disabilities to use telephone services by having a third party transmit and translate the call. telephony—The science of transmitting voice over a telecommunications network. text-equivalent—Refers to a phrase, sentence or combination of phrases and sentences that are written within the code to provide a description of the graphic it represents. TTY—An abbreviation for teletypewriter. A teletypewriter is equipment that employs an interactive text-based communication through the transmission of coded signals across the telephone network. It is sometimes called a TDD. This definition for the term is consistent with the definition as listed in the ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines. tuner card—Refers to a product that enables a computer to receive television broadcasts. undue burden—Undue burden refers to the significant difficulty or expense in relation to making an accommodation for a person with special needs. In determining whether a request for accommodation would result in an undue burden, an agency shall consider all resources available to the program or component for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained or used. This definition is consistent with the definition as outlined by the Access Board and Title I of the ADA. universal design—The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. URL—Acronym for Uniform Resource Locator. Refers to the address or location of a Web site. Glossary 257 user agent—The software one uses to access and navigate the Web. user interface—Any part of a system with which the user interacts. Valid HTML—Web content that complies with the W3C recommendations for accessibility. validation service—An online software service that checks and validates a Web page according to W3C WAI recommendations. video description—An audio narration for television viewers who are blind or visually disabled, which consists of verbal descriptions of key visual elements in a television program, such as settings and actions not reflected in dialog. Narrations are inserted into the program’s pauses and are typically provided through the Secondary Audio programming channel. This definition is identical to the definition used by the FCC. W3C—Acronym for the World Wide Web Consortium. WAI—Acronym for the Web Accessibility Initiative. Web Accessibility Initiative—Established by the World Wide Consortium to promote Web accessibility projects and programs in five areas: technology, guidelines, tools, education and outreach and research and development. Web Authoring software—Refers to the HTML editors, document tools and tools that generate Web content from databases. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines—The standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium’s Accessibility Initiative to offer guidelines to assist in the creation of accessible Web documents. World Wide Web Consortium—An international industry consortium whose mission is to “lead the world Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. 258 About the Authors About the Authors Mary Hricko is an Associate Professor of Library & Media Services at Kent State University. She is currently the library director at the KSU Geauga Campus, where she provides curricular support and technology training for faculty, staff, and students. She has participated in training programs at the Center for Distance Learning Research at Texas A&M and holds a certification in distance education administration. In addition to her research in Web accessibility, information literacy and instructional technologies, she has published several articles and presented several papers on the role of academic support services in distance education. *** Alice Bedard-Voorhees’ excitement about technology is for the possibility it brings to our human capacities. She has worked with the design and delivery of instructional models for adults since the 1970s. Her work affiliations span tribal, public and private colleges, workforce units, private industry and E-Army efforts. A recent chapter, “Creating and Implementing Competency-Based Learning Models,” appeared in Measuring What Matters: Competency-Based Learning in Higher Education (Jossey-Bass, 2001). She currently serves as Chair for Arts and Humanities with the Community Colleges of Colorado Online (http:// www.ccconline.org). Sheryl Burghstahler directs DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology) at the University of Washington. DO-IT promotes the use of assistive technology and the development and use of accessible information technology. Dr. Burgstahler has published dozens of articles and delivered presentations at national and international conferences that focus on the full inclusion of individuals with disabilities in post-secondary education, distance learning, workbased learning and electronic communities. She is the author or coauthor of six books on using the Internet with precollege students. Dr. Burgstahler has extensive experience teaching at the precollege, community college and university levels. She is Assistant Director of Information Systems and Affiliate Associate Professor in Education at the University of Washington. Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. About the Authors 259 Ellen R. Cohn, PhD. is Director of Instructional Development at University of Pittsburgh School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, where she facilitates innovative instructional use of Web-based instructional software throughout a multidisciplinary faculty. Dr. Cohn, along with Ms. Molinero, has presented numerous presentations on the status of Web-based accessibility issues in higher education, health and rehabilitation Web sites, with the results presented in the United States and most recently in China. Jody Condit-Fagan is Social Sciences Librarian at Morris Library, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her research interests include Web accessibility, digital reference and access issues surrounding electronic resources in libraries. She recently co-published an article evaluating access to state legislative Web sites in Government Information Quarterly, and an article describing instant messaging reference systems in Information Technology and Libraries. The author would like to thank Bryan Fagan for his patience and support in her research endeavors. Patti DeWitz, M.S. is an adjunct faculty member at both Marylhurst and Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. She currently teaches several hybrid traditional and Web-based courses. Ms. DeWitz’ eight years in higher education have focused on business and marketing courses. She is an advocate of Internet accessibility and does consulting on business and accessibility issues. Barbara A. Frey, D.Ed. is an Instructional Designer in the Center for Instructional Development and Distance Education at the University of Pittsburgh. In addition, she teaches as adjunct faculty in the Adult Education Department on the Penn State World Campus. As an educator, author and consultant, Dr. Frey develops and facilitates professional development courses for government, educational institutions, businesses and nonprofit organizations. Her research has focused on the areas of program evaluation, instructional design and technology and human resource development. Laurie Harrison, M. Ed., B.A, is a staff member at the Resource Centre for Academic Technology, University of Toronto. She has been involved in a number of projects involving evaluation of online courseware products, and research in the area of Web-based distance education and accessible design. She has been involved as coordinator of several projects, including: Network for Inclusive Distance Education (http://nide.snow.utoronto.ca/); Creating Barrier-Free Broadband Learning Environments (http://www.barrierfree.ca); A-Prompt Tool Kit (http://www.aprompt.ca/); and Web-Savvy Inclusive Web Design Services. Her 260 About the Authors background includes expertise in interactive Web design and instructional technology for the Internet. She has a Masters of Education in Adult Education and currently holds the position of Education Coordinator at the Centre for Academic and Adaptive Technology, University of Toronto. Robert Luke is completing his dissertation at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. His research investigates community learning networks, issues of access and accessibility, online and open source learning and governance. A designer of online education since 1994, Luke participates in the Learning Technology Task Force of the IEEE and is an Executive Peer Reviewer for Educational Technology & Society. His publications address both the social and the technical facets of online environments. He now works as the Educational Technology Coordinator at the School of Continuing Studies, University of Toronto. Maggie McVay Lynch, Ed.D. is currently a faculty member at Portland State University, Oregon. She provides faculty development and graduate student instruction in a variety of traditional and online courses involving the tools and pedagogy of developing Web-based curriculum. Her background includes over 25 years in education, including both K-12 and higher education, as well as training management for two international software companies. Amy Scott Metcalfe, a doctoral student at the University of Arizona’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, research the ways in which information technology has affected the climate and culture of post-secondary education. As a member of the UA Web Council, she has presented information to campus Webmasters and IT managers on the specifics of Web accessibility and has helped to formulate policy in this area. Ms. Metcalfe is currently a Graduate Research Associate for the “Universities in the Information Age” project, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and housed at the Center for the Study of Higher Education. Ashli Molinero, as a Systems Analyst for the University of Pittsburgh School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, has been promoting awareness of Web accessibility issues in education since 1998. Her experience includes professional presentations, papers and consulting for faculty and technical staff at the University. With almost six years of experience in Web development and four years in developing accessible Web sites, she has a M.Ed. in Instructional Design and Technology and is currently pursuing a doctorate in Information Systems and Communications. About the Authors 261 Axel Schmetzke currently works as a reference and bibliographic instruction librarian at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Previously, he was a college instructor (educational foundations), and he worked as a special education teacher at public schools. In addition to a Ph.D. in Educational Policy Studies, he holds master’s degrees in Special Education, Behavioral Disabilities as well as Library and Information Science. His major research focus during the past three years has been on the accessibility of the educational online environment for people with disabilities. Recent publications in this area include “Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools” (Library Hi Tech) and “Online Distance Education—‘Anytime, Anywhere,’ but Not for Everyone” (Information Technology and Disabilities). As guest editor of two u-coming special-theme issues in Library Hi Tech, he seeks to encourage evaluative research on the accessibility of electronic information resources for people with print disabilities. He gave presentations on the subject at numerous conferences, including ALA 2000 (American Library Association), DEED 2000 (Disabled, Enabled, Empowered, Determined), ACRL 2001 (Association of College and Research Libraries), AMTEC 2001 (Association for Media and Technology in Canada) and Assistive Technology in Higher Education 2001. Axel Schmetzke moderates the AXSLIB-L listserv, and he loves sailing, chocolate, margaritas and old vacuum-tube technology. Holly Yu holds a MLIS from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. While studying for her MLIS, she worked at the National Library of Canada, where she co-edited with Carrol Lunau the Canadian Inventory of Resource Sharing. She headed the City of Pasadena Public Library’s Web design and redesign projects from 1997–2000. She is now working at California State University Los Angeles as the University Library’s Web Administrator, reference librarian and bibliographer for History and Geography and Urban Analysis. 262 Index Index A academic and adaptive technology at the University of Toronto 41 academic cyberspace 194 access board 8, 25, 148 access board standards 148 access issues 85 accessibility 28, 49, 98 accessibility research 156 accessibility support for Java 141 accessible electronic and IT design 27 accessible equivalents 65 accessible future 6 accessible learning technologies (SALT) 41 accessible web design 154 accessible web design guidelines or policies 151 accessible web materials 99 accommodation 129 ADA 36 ADA compliant 35 ADA guidelines 125 adaptive equipment 133 adaptive technology 36 adaptive technology resource centre (ATRC) 40 adaptive technology specialist 131 ALA-accredited graduate programs 162 ALT IMAGE 52 ALT tag 32, 52 alt.text 128 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 2, 50, 145, 146, 191 America’s best graduate schools 160 Apple’s QuickTime 55 architectural and transportation access board 8 architectural and transportation barriers compliance 8, 25 arrows 136 ASCII art 51 assistive or adaptive technologies 99 assistive technology (hardware) 30, 85, 191 Assistive Technology Act, (29 U.S.C 3011) 27, 50 authoring tool accessibility guidelines 1.0 104 B barrier-free 153 barriers to access 99 Bell Labs Text-to-Speech system (TTS) 40 BlackBoard 37, 41, 128 blind 100 blind faculty 124 Bobby 11, 157 Bobby approval 164 Braille 133 building web pages 127, 139 bulletin board 131 BVI 125 BVI instructor needs 125 C California Community Colleges 15, 150 California Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 150 California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) 15 cascading style sheets (CSS) 51 CAST Bobby 50, 59 CCTV (closed circuit TV) 133 Center for Distance Learning Research at Texas A&M 35 CGI (common gateway interface) 56 chat room 128 Commission of the Blind 133 composing and accessing private e-mail 127, 139 Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Index 263 composing messages for and accessing the discussion board 139 computer keyboards 37 computer-mediated instruction 37 control keys 136 course management system 99 course manager 128 courses 129 courseware 98 courseware authoring tool developers 99 courseware tools or applications 99 courseware’s usability 127 D default font settings 58 department of education 8 department of justice (DOJ) 5, 149 designing courses 128 digital divide 27, 191 digital literacies 117 digital pedagogies 117, 118 discussion board 127 distance education 159 distance learning 84 distributed learning 84 Dreamweaver 128 E e-learning 84 education guidelines 15 electronic curbcuts 118 enrollment figures 146 equal access to software and information (EASI) 17 error analysis 170 evaluation and usability study 126 experimentation 127, 129 F find 137 forms mode commands 137 frames 56, 136 Front Page 128 G grade book 127, 140 graphs and charts 54 guidelines for distance learning library services 153 H HTML code 128 HTML Writer’s Guild AWARE Center 59 hybrid 129 I icons 128 image maps 52 images 52 inaccessible 84 inclusive electronic learning environments 116 Internet Explorer 137 J Java 44, 128 Java accessibility 107 Java accessibility bridge to native code 44 JAWS 15, 31, 127 JAWS cursor 136 K key guard kits 38 keystrokes 135 L labeling discussion topics 131 learning anytime anywhere partnerships (LAAP) 197 learning disabled 98, 100 legal blindness 134 legal mandate 3 library schools 161 library services for people with disabilities policy 153 lifelong learning 116 List commands 136 list of links 137 list of the frames 137 LONGDESC 54 Lynx 59 264 Index M macros 138 magnification software 130 MAGPie 33, 55 major technology initiatives 141 media access generator (MAGpie) 55 mental map 135 Michael Paciello 3 Microsoft Word 130 Microsoft’s active accessibilty functionality 141 mobility impaired 100 mouse keys 38 multimedia components 55 PowerPoint 130 print disabilities 147 program to enhance and ensure learning (PEEL) 197 project ADOPT-IT 179 proprietary software 133 Q QuickTime 33 quiz tool 140 R National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) 59 National Council on Disability (NCD) 6 navigation 130 navigation bar 136 Netscape 137 Netscape Composer 128 radio buttons 128 rehabilitation act amendments of 1998 (Section 508) 148 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 2, 146 Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) 43 relief map 135 reply button 138 requirements for accessible electronic and information technology design 27 O S OCR 8 OCR Docket Letter No. 09-99-2041 (April 20, 1999) 27 OCR Letter Docket No. 09-95-2206 (January 25, 1996 27 OCR Letter Docket No. 09-97-2002 (April 7, 1997) 27 office for Civil Rights 8 online learning 84 online 129 online course training 130 opinion statement (letter #204) 149 schools of library and information science 162 screen reader commands 136 scripts, applets and plug-ins 56 scrolling time 137 Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act 50 Section 504 2, 50 Section 508 2, 26, 50 Section 508 - 29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d 26 software accessibility 128 Special Needs Opportunities Windows project (SNOW) 40 strategies for working with BVI instructors 135 support requirements 129 synchronized accessible media interchange (SAMI) 33 synchronized multimedia integration language (SMIL) 33 N P page organization 51 participating in the chat room 127, 140 PC cursor 136 pedagogy 130 people with disabilities 84, 99, 146 physically disabled 98 pointing devices 40 Index 265 T Web-based learning 84 WebAIM 197 tables 54 WebAim’s Section 508 33 techniques for Web content accessibility WebBot 130 guideline 1.0 17 WebCT 29, 37, 127 text equivalents 62 WebCT Future Plans 142 text only 51, 62 Western Interstate Commission for Higher text only page 51 Education 59 Tom Harkin 5 whiteboard 127, 140 Trace Center at the University of Wisconsin window-eyes 128 and the University of Washington’s WinScripter v1.0 32 DO-IT 44 Winslow Parker 135 Trace Research and Development Center 59 WOMBAT 40 types of disabilities 146 World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web accessibility initiative 49, 51, U 141 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) U.S. Architectural and Transportation 2, 98, 147, 192 Barriers Compliance Board 50 World Wide Web Consortium’s synchroU.S. Department of Education’s National nized multimedia integration language Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation (SMIL) 55 (NIDRR) 59 U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Z Rights 26 universal design 85, 99, 153 ZoomText 133 universality 179 usability 48 use of color 56 V videoconferencing or teleconferencing 33 virtual adaptive learning architecture (VALA) 197 virtual cursor 136 vision impaired 100 visual cues 134 visually-impaired faculty 124 W W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 17, 30, 98 WAI guidelines 99 Web accessibility 1, 48, 191 Web accessibility initiative (WAI) 40, 98, 148, 192 Web usability 125 Web-based communication tools 129 Web-based implementation assistance 129 Recommend Documents
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DATA MINING TOOLS
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DATA MINING TOOLS
M. Awad Latifur Khan B...
This page intentionally left blank
Copyright © 2009, New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers Published by New Age ...
BGP.book Page i Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:19 PM
BGP Design and Implementation Randy Zhang, CCIE No. 5659 Micah Bar...
Production Rendering
Ian Stephenson (Ed.)
Production Rendering Design and Implementation
12 3
Ian Stephenson, DPhi...
Data Center Design and Implementation IBM Internetworking Design Guide Series, Volume III
Corporate Headquarters Cisco ...
This document was created by an unregistered ChmMagic, please go to http://www.bisenter.com to register it. Thanks.
Ope...
Sign In
Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. Learn how we and our ad partner Google, collect and use data. Agree & close
| |||||||||||||||||||||
