We would appreciate a few minutes of your time to provide some feedback for us to consider for future activities and events by completing our online survey at:

http://www.508surveys.com/survey.php?id=123

Session 1A: The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Accessibility and the Law – Ontario and Beyond

Panel chair: Karen Taylor, CNIB
Scot Weeres, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
Mary-Frances Laughton, Initiative for Equitable Library Access
Jutta Treviranus, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto

Blogged by: Janene Michalak
Session began with Scot Weeres and the discussion about the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), who discussed the AODA, outlining its purpose, implementation and other considerations.

Weeres began the session by providing facts about people with disabilities, and the reasons for having the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act:
Some of these facts include:
- currently 1 in 7 Ontarians, or 1.85 million, have a disability
- as the population increases, the number of people with a disability will increase
- estimated that by 2025, one in five will be 65 years or older with disabilities
- there is a critical labour shortage, which people with disabilities are an untapped resource as the employment rate among those disabled is 5 times as high
- the spending power of people with disabilities is between 21 – 25 billion per year in the US, as the people with disabilities like to eat out, travel, work and participate in everyday activities

He then described the AODA, its purpose, implementation, and compliance issues related to the AODA. The purpose of the AODA is to develop, implement and enforce accessibility standards for goods and services and facilities, accomodation, employment, buildings and structures. In order to develop the standards, some of the groups involved in their development will be people with disabilities, committees comprising of 45 people from government ministries, government agencies, academic institutions, public libraries, health organizations, etc.

The AODA, according to Weeres, is to provide a framework for comprehensive change, leading to full participation of people with disabilities in society by providing standards that will apply to both the public and private sectors of society to remove barriers for people with disabilities, with Ontario being the first Canadian jurisdiction to regulate accessibility standards. The standards will address areas that pose major barriers for people with disabilities, and include physical, architectural, information or communications barriers, attitudinal, technological and policies and practices barriers.

The AODA will provide standards with timelines for compliance in accessing goods, services, buildings and employment, with the intent that the standards will foster integrating accessibility, understanding that it is a multi-year journey.

The approach to implementing the AODA will be a progressive one, through increased awareness, standards development, education, and compliance assurance. The overall goal will be to raise public awareness of barriers of access and illustrate the universal benefits of accessibility.

Some highlights about the Standards Committee include:
- implementation and requirements dates to be phased in
- membership make-up to the SDC
- people with disabilities or their representatives
- industry, organizations and sectors affected by the standards
- Ontario government ministries
- Responsibilities of the committee:
- review practices, sample standards
- build consensus within committee
- get input from respective communities
- will have public-review process

In addition to the committee, Weeres described compliance and enforcement of the Standards, stating that
organizations will file electronic accessibility reports, where there may be incentives in order to remain compliant. Some incentives may be adjusted timelines for reporting based on frequency of being compliant. There will be a risk analysis approach to ensure compliance, with the focus being on the “bad” players and incentives for the “good” players. Compliance orders may be appealed to a tribunal, and fines may be from $100,000 per day for not being compliant for an organization, and individuals, like CEOs, who sign off on the compliance report could be fined $50,000 per day they are not compliant.

Weeres stated that there are 4 components for compliance assurance framework:
1) public education and outreach
- obligated organizations
2) compliance assistance
- online assistance  guidelines, tools to assist for obligations
3) self-certification accessibility reporting
4) inspection and enforcement

Weeres stressed that the Customer Service Standard, the first Standard that was implemented on January 1, 2008 and public service organizations have until January 1, 2010 to comply to (private and non-profit organizations have until January 1, 2012), is about training staff and establishing a customer feedback environment that is accessible to all. He illustrated that a comments box in the back of the room is not considered “accessible”.

Finally, Weeres provided website resources for more information:
www.AccessON.ca/compliance : more information about the AODA
www.mcss.gov.on.ca : about accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities
www.accessibilitydirectory.ca : Directory for Accessibility
www.AccessON.ca : about AccessON

Mary-Frances Laughton:
Initiative for Equitable Library Access (IELA)

Mary-Frances Laughton stated that the Initiative for Equitable Library Access is a Library and Archives Canada’s initiative, with its goal to create conditions for people with print disabilities to use libraries.

As outlined by Laughton, the strategy of LAC’s Initiative will be to “identify ways of improving access to information and materials in multiple formats and will include options associated with promoting, sponsoring, producing, and disseminating public library-type materials in multiple formats”. In addition, the strategy “will also present detailed options and scalable costs for the provision of equitable library access and will explore the extent to which other levels of government or external partners should be involved in supporting sustained access.” (from the handout by the LAC at the registration table, found at
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/005002/f2/005002-1000-e.pdf).

Further, Laughton provided statistics from Statistics Canada and the latest release of the Participation and
Activity Limitation Survey: Assistive aids and devices for Adults (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080603/d080603b.htm). Some of these statistics include:
- 6 out of 10 Canadian adults over the age of 15 with disabilities used or needed technical aids to help them
- 4.2 million people, or 16.6% had some form of disability
- Estimated 2.7 million people used technology to help them with their day-to-day activities
- Approximately 61.6% of the 2.7 million people said that their needs were being met

Specifically about the Initiative, Laughton indicated that it has 3 deliverables, which included development of a fully accessible Internet Portal which will provide access to information for individuals with disabilities, development of an electronic clearinghouse for multiple-format documents, and development of a set of service models, standards and training to provide equitable library access. Laughton went into considerable detail to describe how the LAC is working with publishers and other groups in order to develop the electronic clearinghouse.

As well, Laughton stated that a working group within the CLA has been developed, where two of its initiatives are to

1. address curriculum development within the library school environment that will ensure that students have more training about accessible technologies and formats; and
2. survey public libraries to determine which adaptive technologies they presently use.

Laughton also highlighted that what the Initiative is doing is to keep an ear on what is occurring in the United States, specifically about Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 22 of the U.S. Telecommunications Act, so that whatever is being done in Canada is not being adversely affected by legislation in the United States. She related this back to the publishers and making it easier for them, as they will focus on what needs to be done to be compliant with these two acts in the United States.

In addition, Laughton also illustrated how important it is to have harmonization, as administering a regionalized approach will be close to impossible.

Some links she directed us to are:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080603/d080603b.htm - PALS Survey from Statistics Canada
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/iela – the FAQ sheet, work plan

Jutta Treviranus
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
“Ontario and Beyond”

Treviranus began her section of the session by providing a before/after review of the last 15 years of accessible technology development, specifically about the Web Accessibility Initiative. Included in this was a brief overview of important dates in web accessibility, including the beginning of the draft plan in 1994, the launch of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines in February of 1997, and that in 2005, 27 jurisdictions had embedded the guidelines into legislation.

Providing a brief overview, Treviranus illustrated how web content has changed from 1994 to present, including how web sites develop, who develops websites and where web sites are. Her PowerPoint presentation illustrated that how web authoring tools are used changes how the guidelines are used, specifically that it is easier to think of process than of compliance, and that it is much easier to provide a tool to give the right information than to provide a set of rules that are out of context. Likewise, she illustrated that authoring tools, because of the smaller audience that use web-authoring tools, means that more individuals are likely to comply with the guidelines and legislation.

Treviranus outlined three approaches to meeting accessibility commitments:

1. a single compliant resources approach
2. a media-rich and accessible alternative approach
3. transformational-based approach

Within these approaches, Treviranus outlined some of the problems and future explorations, specifically within the single-compliant resources approach and the transformational-based approach. Specifically that the single-compliant resource approach has five problems, notably the rejection of valuable resources that are not compliant; how a web site could be accessible for everyone but not optimal for anyone; the time and expertise factor for resource creators; a reluctance for use of innovative technologies; and design decisions not matching the experience.

As part of the transformational-based approach to accessibility, some of the points that Treviranus outlined as what is now being explored include dynamically matching resources to the needs of the individual and altering the notion of disability. Within the notion of disability, Treviranus outlined that there is mismatch between the needs of the individual and the environment, and outlined AccessForAll ISO 23751. AccessForAll ISO23751 has two parts:

1. a common language to state what is needed, and
2. that it is done by the system based on each visit.

Treviranus also discussed ARIA, the Accessibility for Rich Internet Applications, indicating that some of the
presentation frameworks for it include Dojo and jQuery.

To conclude her portion of the session, Treviranus outlined that what has been learned over the years is that no-one is perfect, and that the challenge will be creating legislation that is agile and able to adapt to changes in technology.

There followed a Q&A about the session, which included questions about funding for the AODA, and that Treviranus can provide a list of library websites that are accessible vs. non-accessible.

Session 2A: Making it right the first time: Creating barrier-free documents

Karen McCall, Karlen Communications

Blogged by: Janene Michalak

McCall began her session by stating that most of her business deals with compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and ensuring that documents and documentation are accessible. In addition, she outlined the reasons why she began to write books on accessible documents. She outlined that the reason she make the accessible PDF book was because she didn’t know how to make PDF documents in Microsoft Word, and found that formatting overlapping created a lot of the accessibility problems.

This session was a hands-on demonstration about how MS PowerPoint 2007, MS Word 2007 and Adobe PDF could be made accessible.

MS PowerPoint:

McCall stressed the importance of creating a template that everyone can use, stating that 90% of the content can be accessible, provided that the default placeholders are being used. If the person creating the PowerPoint presentation uses text boxes, the document becomes inaccessible because the text boxes are layered on the document instead of becoming an integral part of the document. Instead of using text boxes within the design of the presentation, she recommended using placeholders. Likewise, McCall stated that two objects are not accessible:

1. dynamically linked information to another Microsoft application, because it comes in as a layer of information, and accessible technologies, like JAWS, cannot read the layer
2. an object that is inserted into a slide because of no alt-text tags.

One of the tips that McCall suggested was to think about the overall design of the presentation to figure out in advance where the content will be on the slide, because the layout of the content will alter how the screen reader interprets the information. Specific to MS PowerPoint 2007, McCall illustrated how an image that has an alt-text tag associated with it can be copied to other Microsoft Office programs and the alt-text tag will automatically come along with it.

One point of note was that tagged media on Macs is nowhere near as accessible as tagged media on a PC.

A best practice, according to McCall, about font and size is generally to use the standard default, whatever it is, and let the people with accessible technology adapt to what they need, because the end user has to have the choice about how they will interact with the document. She then demonstrated how font is altered when using a screen reader.

MS Word:

One of the key points that McCall stressed is using templates, where the creator adjusts the style according to needs, but emphasized using structure to the document for navigational purposes. According to McCall, if heading styles are not used, all the information in the document will come across as paragraphs because the screen readers are not able to distinguish that bolded and/or italicized and/or underlined text are to be headings. McCall illustrated this by showing the difference between a bolded heading and using the Heading style, as JAWS was able to navigate the page of the document better through the Heading style being used. Further, McCall stressed that the user can select themes to create styles and can be used, provided that the style is based on a hierarchical structure because the overall structure of headings still remains.

In addition to templates, McCall stressed the use of alt-text tags, particularly with images and tables. Because Word documents are not always necessarily going to be viewed online, the image needs to have a caption, which can be the same as the alt-text tag. However, McCall cautioned that the description within the alt-text tag needs to be concise but accurate – the buffer in the screen reader will crash if there is too much information in the alt-text tag. McCall also recommended providing a caption for the table for the user. Further, mathematical equations need to be written out in long form, as the screen reader will not know that the \ key is the division key.

To end the section on MS Word, McCall illustrated how links in text documents need to be created, by illustrating how to include a link in a sentence, and some phrases not to be used. In particular, McCall illustrated how a user can find links within the document through MS Word and review what the link is. By doing this, McCall was able to illustrate how inaccessible links with names like “Click here” or “Select” or “Go To” because they do not tell the user anything about where they are when taken out of context. She also advised not to write out the entire URL in the document as it breaks the train of thought for those with cognitive disabilities or some vision loss.

Finally, McCall was able to provide an example of good alt-text tag versus a bad alt-text tag by describing a picture of a dinosaur remains with ferns growing through it. Her example was – “dinosaur with ferns through its ribs” vs “this dinosaur skeleton with ferns growing through its ribs illustrates how it does not limit itself and the new growth coming through the ribs illustrates how it breaks barriers”. and she stated that the alt-text tag should be one or two lines at most so it does not crash the screen reader’s buffer.

PDF

By reviewing the Digital Odyssey 2008 brochure, McCall illustrated that the PDF document is inaccessible because it has no heading tags; however, she noted that it was created in a way that facilitated access.

She reviewed two additional PDF documents, particularly the Sound Forge 9 manual, and illustrated that none of the headings were tagged, and that ½ of the Step-by-Step instructions were not tagged. One of the points that McCall made was that typically, she works with poorly created documents to begin with, and that document design is an integral part of how to make the document accessible.

McCall also stated that using non-standard fonts makes making PDF documents inaccessible because the tags are not joined.

One of the questions asked was about where this information would fit within the AODA, and it was answered that it would fall under the Information standard because it involves communication. McCall also provided her email address should anyone wish to contact her for more information: info@karlencommunications.com for more info.

Speaker: Jutta Treviranus
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto

Treviranus began her closing remarks by pointing to the seeming decline of library fortunes. From OCLC’s report on the perception of libraries, we see that in the battle of libraries vs search engines, search engines have won out. Libraries are facing cuts and closures, and in many ways physical and online bookstores are becoming for-profit libraries.

On the other hand, Treviranus suggests that all is not lost, and that with technology, libraries have new strengths and tools. Libraries are at a significant moment in history, able to harness the power of technology to create and store content, to provide seamless access to the information that we have at our fingertips. Like many strengths, however, technology is a double-edged sword, and in this case technology can create a divide between those who know how to work with the digital world and those who do no. As well, we can create new (and better?!) barriers through the use of thoughtless design.

To take advantage technology, libraries must understand and address the wide variety of challenges. These challenges include:

Publishing

• academic institutions are in the peculiar position of having to purchase academic research articles that was created by their faculty in the first place. Libraries must buy this information back, often times in formats that are not accessible.

Open document formats

• We need to make sure the formats are accessible from the start

Copyright

• Libraries are likely in the best position to know what is at stake, and so we have an obligation to use our influence to shape copyright legislation

Web 2.0

• In the web 2.0 world, only the popular wins out. Libraries have an obligation to promote different values of content, which might mean highlighting the obscure

Mobile Technologies

• Libraries must adapt our services to fit different contexts

Design

• of Library applications
• of digital media
• of online spaces (with over 600 libraries in 2nd Life, how can we influence that space to accommodate all users?
• of 3D Collections, making accessible to all users

We don’t need SuperLibrarians to address all these challenges, according to Treviranus.
Instead, we need committed librarians fulfilling traditional roles.

Panel Chair: Alison McCullough, Oshawa Public Library

Speakers: Athol Gow, University of Guelph

                  Susan Back, Toronto Public Library

                  Dorothy McNaughton, Friends of Canadian Libraries

Blogged by Cristina Dolcetti

This panel session was chaired by Alison McCullough from the Oshawa Public Library system. These three presentations focused on digital technology and accessibility issues in various library systems.

University of Guelph
Athol Gow, from the Adaptive Technology Lab at the University of Guelph, described the university’s adaptive technology services for students. He first discussed the Library Centre for Students with Disabilites (LCSD), which was formed in 1998 through the university library and the Centre for Students with Disabilities (CSD). The LCSD’s Adaptive Technology Lab aims to meet a range of user needs through seven computers, three scanners and a colour CCTV.

Adaptive Technology Available at the University of Guelph
The adaptive technologies available at the University of Guelph include

- Dragon Naturally Speaking (through individual computer licenses at the LCSD)
- JAWS (at all computers on campus through licenses)
- Kurzweil (at the LCSD)
- Inspiration (at the LCSD)
- Read and Write
- Zoomtext

Funding and Partnership Support
Mr. Gow acknowledged funding support from the University of Guelph Library IT services, from the CSD and from campus student support funds. He also acknowledged the support from campus-related partnerships, including the University of Guelph Library IT services, the University of Guelph Learning Commons, the university’s development and public relations staff, the CSD and the computing and communication services.

Issues with Adaptive Technology
Mr. Gow identified current adaptive technology issues experienced at the University of Guelph. These included:

- the overcrowding of computing resources on campus
- the expenses surrounding adaptive technology
- making adaptive technology available to students at home
- the conflicts viewpoints between having a lab and distributing the adaptive technology across campus
- identifying the policy for the LCSD support role within the faculty and campus community.

Finally, Mr. Gow highlighted a future possibility of USB key-based adaptive software allowing for easier technological transportation

Toronto Public Libraries (TPL)
Susan Back, from the Access and Information Commons at the Toronto Reference Library, discussed the Toronto Public Library System’s adaptive technology services for students. She first described the Centre for People With Disabilities: http://www.tpl.toronto.on.ca/spe_lea_dis.jsp.
Staff at this centre evaluate new adaptive technology systems and develop training policies and procedures. The Centre for People With Disabilities features 6 wheelchair accessible workstations, a scanner, Braille printer and MS Office software.

Additionally, there are sixteen learning centres throughout the TPL, whose regular activities include “Surfing Seniors” internet drop-in workshops. The TPL also uses an Ingenium catalogue, as well as Zoomtext to magnifiy the text on the screen. Library staff are trained in Zoomtext and MS Office, while staff training for JAWS and Kurzweil is under development.

Promotion for these Services takes place through library publicity, signage on work stations, and the TPL website.

Issues
Issues identified:

- getting IT staff resources to change from Dynix to Symphony
- training staff
- incompatibility of Zoomtext with the regular computer programs

Funding
Ms. Back acknowledged funding for these developments from the IT Foundation and the Toronto Public Library Foundation.

Friends of Canadian Libraries
The session’s final speaker was Dorothy McNaughton, president of the Friends of Canadian Libraries

Barriers

What are barriers? Barriers are any obstacles preventing individuals with disabilities from participating fully. Both removing barriers and preventing them from occuring are both important to environments that encourage participation from everyone.

In a library context, barriers can include:

- the inability of people with visual impairments to locate materials easily
- lack of an inclusive emergency policy
- inaccessible washrooms
- lack of staff training with adaptive technologies
- lack of staff training in customer service to assist people with disabilities

Listen to Communities!
According to Ms. McNaughton, libraries should seek feedback from their patrons. This feedback may increase awareness of “invisible” issues, such as the potentially overwhelming aspects of membership forms for individuals with learning disabilities. Continuous feedback provides libraries with ideas for purchases in the libraries that would be relevant to patrons. Ms. McNaughton also emphasized the continuing importance of adaptive technology, including described DVDs, books recorded on CDs and outreach services.

Funding
To fund adaptive technology services, Ms. McNaughton recommended contacting local Lions Clubs and Friends of the Library groups, as well as various organizations including accessibility committees, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario.

Panel Chair: Athol Gow, University of Guelph

Speakers: Martin Courcelles, CNIB

                  Paul Feldman, Computing by Voice

                  Neil McGregor, Strategic Transitions

                  Jo-Ann Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society

Blogged by Cristina Dolcetti

The four presentations in this panel session focused on introducing the audience to a variety of current technology to assist users who have disabilities.

Kurzweil 1000, version 10.5

Martin Courcelles, from the CNIB, conducted the first presentation. His section centred on demonstrating Kurzweil 1000, version 10.5. The system features shown included the ability to access a variety of magazines and encyclopedia, as well as the ability to interpret the contents of scanned documents and to read them out loud. This last feature in particular makes information more accessible to users; it allows individuals to select listening materials from any available book in print with little waiting time. Mr. Courcelles also alerted audience members to the wealth of auditory materials available online to CNIB members, and played part of a Harry Potter recording for the audience.

Voice Recognition Software
Sometime in the future, digital technology may be manipulated by thoughts alone. Currently, voice recognition software is key to adaptive technology. Paul Feldman, representing Computing by Voice, led the second panel section. This presentation focused on the role of voice recognition software in maintaining a healthy, productive work environment. Not only might voice recognition software reduce the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome and back problems, but it appears to be highly efficient too. The accuracy of Dragon Naturally Speaking, a voice recognition program, was revealed time and again throughout the section. In one exercise, 117 words were dictated in 53 seconds with no spelling errors, a feat that would be difficult to beat by skilled typists.

Kurzweil 3000 and Inspiration
Once individuals are aware of their abilities and limitations in either a school or workplace environment, what digital technologies can be used for assistance? During the third presentation, Neil McGregor from Strategic Transitions demonstrated the features of Kurzweil 3000. Kurzweil 3000 has many assets, including its ability read a page at different speeds and in different voices, all of which are high quality. The program Inspiration was also demonstrated. Inspiration can transfer information into a diagram, and assists with visually organizing projects.

Teletype Technology
Jo-Ann Bentley, a representative from the Canadian Hearing Society, led the final presentation for this panel session. Her section focused on techniques to make information accessible to individuals with hearing impairments. Early advice including having ASL interpreters at meetings with the public and featuring ASL captions on audiovisual technology. Current teletype technology was also demonstrated. Now, instead of reaching for a teletype machine, it is possible to use teletype computing programs. Teletype software can be downloaded to computers, and the company TextNet can be contacted for assistance. Teletype software has the potential to increase communication for clients who have hearing impairments since it is similar to many contemporary chat programs, including MSN.

Rm 218 3:00 PM 3 Speakers
Michele Chittenden- Library Services for Students with Disabilities- Queens University

Envision Universal Access and Equitable use

Libraries offer online resources. Individuals with a print disability no longer have to wait for alternate versions to be available.
Unfortunately many web pages and web page resources contain access barriers

Libraries play an important role in ensuring equitable access to online resources.

How accessible is your library (homepage, catalogue, databases?)

Q How many design webpages.? A a few.

Definition of Disability

No universally accepted definition. In Ontario it is defined by human rights act.

What limits Accessibility

A library user may not be able to
• See graphics because of visual impairment
• Distinguish colours
• Hear audio because of hearing impairment
• Use a keyboard or mouse
(Use descriptive videos?)

Other library users
• Difficulty reading or comprehending text
• Have difficulty with unorganized sites (Users with ADD have issues with disorganized websites)
• Use assistive technologies
• Use Older Equipment and slower equipment. (backwards compatibility?)

Accessibility Standards
• W3C
• CLFI 2.0- Common Look and Feel Standards Internet
• Web accessibility Initiative (WAI)
www.w3.org/WAI

Web accessibility and the law.
American Law
Section 508 addresses web based internet and intranet information and applications
Canadian
AODA

• Achieving accessible design
• Employ universal Design Principles
• Equitable use
• Flexible use
• Simple and intuitive use
• Low physical effort
• Follow W3C technologies and guidelines
• Design for device-independence

Structure of electronic resource is crucial for accessibility. Tagging and following the guidelines is very important.

Some of the designs make sense for users with disabilities, and those who use small hand held devices.

Since 2002 studies done on web based interface accessibility
Studies involved screen readers and ADA standards
Databases are functionally acceptable but not user friendly for persons with disabilities.
Illogical placement of buttons boxes et cetera.

5./12 companies surveyed for library databases conducted usability tests with people who have disabilities.

Canadian studies. Show not usable
Web Validation tools are used to correct code errors. All types of disabilities should be considered.

OPAC accessibility barriers
Common barriers use of repeated links, use of acronyms such as mark or ill. Security time outs.
To mitigate this, online catalogues should be intuitive and use terminology that is meaningful and apply web accessibility standards.

How accessible is your library homepage
Are the portals in your resources accessible and usable?

JSTOR is a full text database. They have accessible policies. A PDF file is hardly accessible.
Now it has changed to PDF format but it depends on structure of documents and tags.

Consult with users who have a disability to learn how they use the library resources
Ensure that your library’s full text catalogue can be accessed with a variety of devices. Include in collection development policy a statement about product accessibility. Evaluate new products for accessibility test previously acquired products for accessibility and inform vendors of barriers. Acquire knowledge of the AODA
Train library staff to assist users who cannot access electronic resources

Philip Springall

Print disabled access library resources
- a screen magnifier (zoomtext) or screen reader (jaws) and Patience
Video shown- Doctoral student at U of Illinois , trying to use a Screenreader and Jaws.

Library vendors and Accessibility
The climate is changing

EBSCO Accessibility interest group shows videos of people not using their software effectively and then fixes the problems
http://Cita.disability.uiuc.edu/collaborative/libraryebsco

When Compliance isn’t enough (Section 508) which si the accessibility legislation in the US. You have to go beyond the minimum standards.

The venders are filling out VPAT voluntary product accessibility templates to give to vendors in order to assess product. Proquest VPAT form is displayed as an example.
Eg www.proquest.com/techsupport.docs.adainfo.shtml

Accessibility is not equal to usability. Accessibility Audit Accessibility Testing
Accessibility audit where an expert reviews your site. or test where real users try the software. It’s not about the criteria but whether a human can use it. A user would want the tests complete and you want the expert to tell you how best to fix the problems.

CNIB accessible Design Services
Consultations on accessible website design
Education and training on development of accessible websites
Annual certification check and sight check seal
http://Cnib.ca/en/services//accessibility/design

Steve Cutway- Information access specialist @ Queens.

Research investigation and consultation

Visually a sighted user can skim content in a screen. A screen reader doesn’t give a visually challenged person that capability. If it is webpages that they don’t visit very often it’s a big challenge. This is particularly true for students that have to research. For university systems, what course tool is chosen for collaboration or putting materials online. The common ones are webct and blackboard and they are both owned by the same company. They are inherently inaccessible unless you are willing to spend a lot of time and patience becoming familiar with the software. But it’s not just the disabled community that has issues with the design of this software.

The whole notion of accessibility shouldn’t be an ad on or an afterthought. It helps everyone else.
CNIB Digital Library webpage is read by zoomtext as an example of site that was developed from the ground up with accessibility in mind. The site was unveiled in 2003.
Patrons of the CNIB library have access to other services.

If it’s a site that you’re familiar with the ‘shutup’ key (control key) can be used.

Certain links on the site can be accessed with access keys (alt +7) There is a lot of debate whether access keys should be used. At one time it was like running parallel sites. Access keys run in that category.

5 Keys Tab to move from link to link. Up and down arrows line by line, left and right arrow go character by character left and write.
How much can you accomplish with those 5 keys? That will give you an idea of how accessible an application is.

Testing websites. Given the cost of Jaws (1395$) in the last few years there is an open source low cost to free screen reader community. In the windows world there is NVDA (non visual desk top access) Thunder, and System access to go. System access to go is free, and released in January 08. Take any browser, go to www. Satogo.com. to download. This way you can use the JAWS keystrokes to test. JAWS keystrokes have become a standard. It can access facebook, and twitter and other web 2.0 sites, and googledocs. All of the adaptive software can now be run from a USB key.

Speaker: Jan Richards- Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) University of Toronto
Location: Room 218A CNIB conference centre 1:30

Jan Richards, M.Sc. is a UI Design Specialist at the ATRC, University of Toronto. His email is Jan.richards (at) utoronto.ca

Olita Vice President Petter Ellinger introduces Jan Richards
Jan has designed the web based teaching tool that helps identify children with special needs and sign link studio.

Majority of the room has seen the use of alt Tags. Approx 30% of the room has heard of the term AJAX. 50% of the audience is involved in the development of web content.

Alt tags are the most commonly identified web accessibility method.

AJAX: stands for asynchronous Javascript and XML. It allows webpages to update themselves at any time without having to refresh the page (thus asynchronous). AJAX is often used with DHTML together. DHTML allows custom non-HTML controls to be created. This causes a variety of issues. A description of a custom made window side bar (slider) is given. When there is a DHTML slider drawn by the author to work like a slider. The browser has difficulty interpreting the function of a slider.

AGENDA

Basic Problem
Components of Accessibilty
*Goal of User Agents
*Special purpose interfaces
*Universal Design
*Accessibilty Guidelines
*WCAG 2.0
*Authoring Help
*AJAX HTML ARIA
*Accessible DHTML Example
*Conclusion

Basic Problem
Authors seek to convey information and control the end-user experience. In diong so they lock the content ( Images of text, and rigid presentation) Example of logo branding by corporations is given. Fonts/images controlled and strictly laid out. Bringing the text print mindset of stationary letterhead, to the web.

Unlike text there are different uses for web and users with disabilities have different needs, or users in different environments. All of this has impact on the user experience. The user should have a degree of control over their web experience to allow for these extraneous factors.

For instance the ability to use a voice synthesizer to be able to access web while on the move, without having to look at a screen, or have electronic text converted into braille.

Components of Web Accessibility
The end to end prcocess is described. From Developers using authoring and evaluation tools to create content on the web.
Users use assistive technologies to to access browsers and media players in order to experience the web content.

Components of Web Accessibility
Content (Via HTML,CSS, JavaScript),
Browser (Semantic processing, Visual Processing),
Mapped to Platform (Platform accessibiilty service- MSAA, GNOME accessibility toolkit API) and from there to the
Assistive technology display.

User Agents
Peripheral devices hardware, software used by those with disabilities to access mainstream software. Browsers are viewed through assistive technology lense.
e.g. Screen readers, voice recognition, alternative keyboards, word prediction, alternative mice, refreshable braille display.

User agents: Browser settings
Now Browser functionality is picking up tasks that used to be available only by assistive technology. For example IE Accessibility settings -the magnifyer setting under IE accessibility. Always expanding alt text for images. Reset text size to medium while zooming, Reset zoom level to 100% for new windows and tabs.

Special Purpose Interfaces
An accessible version creating a seperate interface but!
seperate interfaces are not a good idea because
* they are additional work to deveop
*additional work to maintain
*attempting to re-invest assistive technologies without sufficient experience and user input falls short.
* users want consistent experiences.
*The best approach is “Universal Design” – build a flexible model for all users.
Special purpose interface example is explored -to set the temperature for an application. The thought was there would be a temperature option temperature with a text box with number input. What was actually produced was a list of numbers in 6 columns with sliders in order to choose each digit not thinking that the blind can actually type in the number of the temperature.

Lesson learned
*Standards exist to support interoperability
* These should be followed since you do not always know swhat form teh client woudl like
* User interface design standards help people transfer knowledge

Universal Design Principles Link Given www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprincipleshtmlformat.html
* Equitable use
*Flexibility in Use
* Simple and intuitive
* Perceptible INformation
*Tolerance for error
* Low physical Effort
* Size and space for approach and use
www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprincipleshtmlformat.html

Key Benefit is recognizing “curb cut” opportunities. Changes made that actually help everyone. The advantage of curb cutting was that the adaptation was in use for
* delivery carts, baby strollers, bikes.
* people accessing visual inforamtion o n very small devices or screens have similar needs to those that have low vision.
* people accesssing audio information have similar needs as people that are deaf
* automated processes act “deaf” and “blind” “google search engine is a blind user with a billion friends and a trillion dollars.”

Accessibility Guidelines
* Best web accessibility is W3C Web Content Accessibility guidelines
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20

WCAG 2.0 Percievable

Text alternatives to non text content depends on p urpose of content
- control or accepts user input (describe its purpose)
Time Based Media (provide descriptive ID)
Test or exercise ( provide descriptive ID)
Sensory Experience (provide descriptive ID
CAPTCHA (Completely automated public turing test to tell computers and humans apart) – Note purpose and provide alternatives forms of CAPTCHA in another mode
q: who uses audio captcha-Hotmail, MS passport uses CAPTCHA audio
q: what do you think of flash: J -good video format over the web in a way that is reliable. The audience member notes it interferes with working with screens. J-Info in accessible flash is available. “Webaim”
Decoration Formating Invisible: Help Assistive technology ignore it (i.e. alt=”")
q: is there any current analyzers for web2.0, Bobby Software is used for 1.0. J- Webaim actually has one. ATRC has one that is called Achecker. Aprompt used to repair static html. q: Are there Developer plugins for firefox available? J- yes
Example is given of website display with Alt text ON vs not available. It is apparent that text alternatives on, the webpage is much more understandable.

The parts of time based media can be made accessible by
Audio
-captions (prerecorded)
-captions ( live)
-sign language translation
Video
-Audio descriptions
-extended audio descriptions
Interaction
- text

Text graphics to be made more distinguishable
- contrast
-resizeability
-ability to control audio
-low or no background audio

WCAG 2.0 Operable
* Every funciton must be accessible from the keyboard
* No Keyboard Traps
* Provide enough time
* avoid flashign content that could cause seizures
* provide structure to help the user navigate ( headers, bypass, links, tab order, etc)

WCAG 2.0 Understandable
* Language of the page and language shifts shouldb e marked up
* Reading level should be considered
* Abbreviations and words are used in unusual restricted ways, this can be marked up
* Pronounciation aids can be provided
* Don’t shift the users context just because they move the focus or chagne teh setting of a control
*Keep navigation and control labelling consistent
* Help the user identify input errors
* Help prevent mistaken user submissions

W3AG 2.0 Robust

Authoring Help
* An important tool for helping to ensure accessible web are automated accessibility checkers
wave.webaim.org
checker.atrc.utoronto.ca
*some are integrated into authoring tools
*some repair tools available
Accessibility awareness is being added to web authoring tools
* Ask for authoring tools that meet the W3C authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines ATAG 2.0
One day accessibility may be handled as routinely as spell checking is now

AJAX DHTML ARIA
Web applications using AJAX make use of DHTML to create custom non HTML controls (As mentioned previously)

This is a major challenge for accesibility because it stops semantic processing which means there isn othing going to accessibility service and thus nothing showing in the accessible technology display

*Without the slider, semantics, the browser doesn’t know what the slider is. It is the sighted users eye that is composing the elements

The old Solution
Described using elemenet to provide alternative which means 2 versions to maintain. a fncy one to use new technology and a special purpose one that is seldom updated as a result

A better solution
ARIA- Accessible rich internet applications, emergiang standard that defines semantic roles states and properties of user interface controls
allows the browser to use these and communicate them to assistive technologies
-roles (alert button )
-states (checked, disabled)
-properties (discribedby)

ARIA reconnects the semantics and is supported by firefox 3 and IE 8 will have this technology.

Keyboard Access
-in HTML4 tabindex lets authors control the way tab moves teh focus between form controls and hyperlinks
-HtmL5 and ARIA all elements cn receive focus as follows
no tabindex- same as html4
tabindex =-1 not in tab order- you can get focus programmatically from the mouse

Accessible DHTML example given of an ordered list.

Tab container is focused by teh tab button but the individual tabs are not. keyboard navigation to them will be done with javascript instead.

the Aria “role and “labled” connect the elements. eg: Role=”tablist”

Prebuilt Widgets
* Many developers don’t design their own DHTML controls
Instead they use pre-built controls from widget sets
The dojo widget set is being updated with Aria.

CONCLUSIONWeb access is readily attainable when the author:
-Gives access to the underliying information to control the user experience

Queston and Answer

Q: software to software testing- we do not have the characteristics of those we design for – A: Human testers are very valuable

Q: is there a list of words to avoid so taht the screen reader does not mangle the words with respect to alt tags. A: probably HTML tags should be avoided in text and screenreaders can insert by themselves

Debbie Pantazis

Download the final program for Digital Odyssey 2008 as an MS Word file

Exhibit information is now available!
Go to the exhibit page