Linking research & learning technologies through standards

Whilst we still need to wait for the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) advice and the Australian Government Information Management Office’s (AGIMO) Transition Strategy on adopting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0), the vocational education and training sector (VET) has been considering the specific implications for e-learning content development and use.

In VET we’ve been looking at WCAG 2.0 within the context of current content creation processes and practices so that we can estimate the likely effect of transitioning to 2.0.  In 2009, the group responsible for ratification of technical standards for use in the VET sector, the E-standards Expert Group (EEG), commissioned Roger Hudson to undertake an evaluation of WCAG 2.0 and the requirements for transitioning from current processes and practice to meet WCAG 2.0.

The resulting report identified that migration from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 is likely to be relatively straightforward for content creators who understand WCAG 1.0 (although there may be more complexity where there is accessibility-supported use of some technologies) and allowed the EEG to make a submission to AGIMO on behalf of the sector (an initial recommendation of WCAG 2.0 Level AA with accessibility supported use of Flash, JavaScript and PDF for development of new content).

Significantly, the research also highlighted gaps in content creator basic understanding of accessibility and correspondingly WCAG 1.0. Whilst this was a not  unexpected result, given that a significant amount of the content is produced by teachers who are not web professionals, it may mean that the migration to WCAG 2.0 would be less straight-forward than we’d hope.  It also means that in VET, like the other education sectors, we need to recognise that there is a large back-catalogue of uncompliant content.

Identifying and recognising that the challenge for the VET sector is not just content creators understanding WCAG 2.0 has meant that we have not been hamstrung while the government  and AHRC discuss where they’ll go with WCAG 2.0.  We are now certain that content creators need not only the technical knowledge that will allow them to successfully build accessible content, but also an understanding of why they need to make content accessible from the perspective of legality and equity.

While AGIMO transition plan is being formulated and AHRC are considering their stance we’ll be working to increase the knowledge, skill-level and understanding of VET content creators  so that they have the capacity to build accessible content regardless of of the technology.   We hope that between now and 2012 we can equip VET content creators with the skills to make use of the extensive supporting documentation for WCAG 2.0 and that they can benefit from the  more readily testable techniques and examples of what will satisfy the success criteria.

We’ll also be following up with AGIMO and AHRC and feeding information about the volume of educational content that already exists into the transition discussions, in the hope that the scope of the strategy will take into account  the scale of maintenance and the work effort that would be required if the requirements were to be applied retrospectively.

After considerable deliberation the Australian Government has endorsed adherence to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG  2.0) for all government websites. This decision supersedes the previous mandate for compliance with WCAG 1.0 Level A checkpoints. The initial announcement came via ministerial press release on February 23, 2010 and the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), who’ve been managing the WCAG 2.0 evaluation and transition planning, amended the accessibility section of the Web Publishing Guide the following day:

Government agencies will transition to WCAG 2.0 over a four year period, reaching level Single A within two years, and Double A within four years. A Transition Strategy will outline the process for implementation, and will address scope and inclusion issues. The Transition Strategy will be made available on the Web Publishing Guide in July 2010.

Agencies are reminded that it is still a requirement to publish an alternative to all PDF documents (preference for HTML or RTF). Advice on the accessibility support of PDF documents will be made available at the conclusion of the PDF Accessibility Review Project, due early 2010.”

AGIMO’s announcement brings some clarity to the application of WCAG 2.0 for government materials and mandates a higher level of adherence than the government was previously mooted to be considering (and in doing so is likely to benefit a greater number of users) but a number of questions remain in terms of the breadth of the AGIMO transition strategy, who they’ll consult and the position of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

We’re still in a situation where we need to predict the actions of AHRC, but as the AGIMO WCAG 2.0 position is closer in spirit to the interim WCAG 1.0 position of AHRC, it’s reasonable to assume that the level of conformance advocated by AHRC is not likely to be any less than that endorsed by AGIMO. The forthcoming completion of the PDF review and the Web Publishing Guide update provide a basis upon which to anticipate that AHRC will make a statement about WCAG 2.0 in the near future, so the next few months will be a key time for interested parties to participate in transition discussions and look out for announcements.

With Australian interest in the release of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0), web accessibility has emerged as a hot topic for 2009/2010. The Link Affiliates team are planning a series of blog posts from a range of interested parties on the topic of web accessibility to find out what’s happening in Australian education.

This series kicks off with a brief overview of the WCAG 2.0 specification and Australian government web accessibility requirements from Kristena Gladman. Kristena works at e-Works where she has coordinated an investigation into the impact of WCAG 2.0 on the Vocational Education and Training Sector. She has also previously worked on the Curriculum Corporation’s “The Learning Federation” project.

Accessibility can be loosely defined as the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is readily available to all users. Accessible web design should ensure that all users can access the content regardless of their location, experience or type of computer technology – particularly users with disabilities.  Web content designed without consideration of accessibility will often have access issues for people with disabilities or technological limitations.  Whilst accessibility of web content is often aligned with catering to disabled users there are significant benefits for the majority of users if content is accessible.

The need for web accessibility is recognised internationally in United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In Australia the provision of accessible web content, like equitable access to buildings, education, employment, public transport and goods and services, is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) which is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

In practice, these provisions mean that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a requirement, particularly for publicly funded web content.
Read the rest of this entry »

For the last few years, tools to allow people to collaboratively annotate websites and other online objects have started to emerge as something researchers want. For example Annocryst is popular for collaboratively annotating 3D crystallographic models, and the University of Melbourne’s e-Scholarship Research Centre has identified online annotation as a highly desirable feature for their Online Heritage Resource Manager software.

However, there doesn’t seem to be a killer app for annotating web pages, and even Zotero — very popular in the e-Humanities — has limited uptake, since it only works in Firefox.

Ron Chernich (University of Queensland)’s live demonstration of a new annotation tool called Danno, at eResearch Australasia, was interesting for three reasons [abstract, presentation]: he explained why browser extensions are bad, he demonstrated an alternative approach using cross-browser javascript, and third, people started using it: right there, in the presentation!

What’s wrong with browser extensions

Most annotation tools used in e-research are browser extensions. While this has gotten the community a long way, there are limitations. In a nutshell:

• They’re completely browser-specific, multiplying development effort: a Firefox plugin has to be completely rewritten for IE, Safari, Opera, etc.
• They require installation and browser restart, increasing the barrier to entry. (Even that little bit matters)
• They run with a high level of privileges, potentially compromising user security.
• As they can conflict with a group’s Standard Operating Environment, they may require the approval and support of the IT department to install.

Danno: using cross-browser JavaScript

The UQ team were asked to develop a collaborative annotation service for the Atlas of Living Australia with one rule: no browser plugins. They took up the challenge,  finding a way to make  JavaScript work for any website. Their solution, Danno, works with two different models:

• “Danno-friendly” sites include some scripts at the top to add features like showing and editing any annotations on the current page.
• Unenhanced sites can be seen through a “Repeater” – effectively a single-use proxy server that injects the required JavaScript on the way through. Using a bookmarklet makes this a one-click operation for any page.

Getting JavaScript to work across all browsers is hard, of course. But they managed.

Result: people used it!

The really remarkable thing about the presentation was that no sooner had Ron shown the URL to the demo page, than audience members started spontaneously trying it out. It was pretty easy: hover over an annotation and click “Reply to Annotation”. Or find the “Dannotate” link (again, best used as a bookmarklet), and create a new one. You can even annotate regions within images. By taking away any requirement to install anything or even register as a user, participation just happened.

For comparison, there exists another tool, Diigo, with some of these features, and which can also operate without a plugin, but it is designed to require a username and password, retaining some barrier to entry.

No doubt, extensions like Zotero work well within in institution where there is IT support, a high level of engagement with a project, and everyone is using the same platform. But approaches like Danno might work better in distributed projects, with less engagement from prospective members (ie, barrier to entry matters more), and where support for a given browser extension cannot be guaranteed.

The IMS Global quarterly meeting for mid-2009 was held at TELUQ, the distance education arm of the Université du Québec à Montréal, and a leader in e-learning research. This meeting incorporated workshops on Common Cartridge; Learning Tools Interoperability; and Curriculum Standards. (See the programme for the meeting.)

Many of the areas being addressed by the Digital Education Revolution were key concerns of the meeting:

• Lesson Plans (as they are being integrated into Common Cartridge)
• The interaction of web 2.0 technologies, and widgets in particular, with learning design tools
• Curriculum Description (as it is being integrated into Common Cartridge)
• Learning Content Discovery and Exchange (the IMS LODE project)
• Trials of Learning Tools Interoperability
• Future directions of IMS Learning Design.

One of the key focuses of the workshop was Common Cartridge as a way of packaging and distributing learning content. Common Cartridge is now up to version 1.1, and it has become important for IMS as an anchor for other activities enabling more effective learning. The meeting dedicated a day each to workshops exploring how Common Cartridge will interact with two major new initiatives, Curriculum Description and Learning Tools Interoperability.
Read the rest of this entry »