October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The first and most common approach is to aim to create a single resource (Web site, Web application) that meets all the accessibility requirements. Such a resource is known as a universally accessible resource. While this approach would work well in many situations, it is not often that authors succeed in making their resources ‘universally accessible’, especially when they contain interactive components. As well, it is possible to make a resource that satisfies the guidelines but is, in fact, not accessible to everyone. There are also potential problems due to lack of attention to usability principles that may account for lack of satisfactory access (Disability Rights Commission (UK), 2004). The DRC rigorously tested sites that had passed the W3C accessibility tests by asking people with disabilities to use them and, in this process, followed standard usability testing techniques. In their report, the DRC said that: 2.2 Compliance with the Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ensuring that sites are practically accessible and usable by disabled people. As many as 45% of the problems experienced by the user group were not a violation of any Checkpoint, and would not have been detected without user testing. and FINDING 5: Nearly half (45%) of the problems encountered by disabled users when attempting to navigate websites cannot be attributed to explicit violations of the Web Accessibility Initiative Checkpoints. Although some of these arise from shortcomings in the assistive technology used, most reflect the limitations of the Checkpoints themselves as a comprehensive interpretation of the intent of the Guidelines. (The authors of the guidelines, W3C, have recognized these short-comings and are in the process of producing a revised set, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Version 2 (W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0), that should better match their intentions.) Indeed, a resource may be accessible to everyone, but optimal for no one. Unfortunately, authors concerned about accessibility often avoid resource components that may be very effective, entertaining or efficient for some learners, for fear they will not be accessible to all learners (Macromedia’s Flash application is a typical example). The second approach used by a number of educational content providers is to create two versions of a resource: a media rich version and an “accessible version,” the latter being stripped of all media that may cause accessibility problems. Typically these alternative versions are available as ‘text only’ versions for selection by a user. UsableNet have developed a Lift Text Transcoder (UsableNet) that dynamically produces text versions of pages. This was done to avoid the mismatch of maintenance of pages where the pages were not automatically generated and content providers would up-date their media-rich pages but forget to do the same for their text-only versions. In many cases, media-rich pages are made available as text-only pages by conversion of the text and thus a lot of valuable content is simply not available to those who cannot access the media objects. While the provision of text-only pages solves some of the problems with the first approach, it can also cause other problems. In some cases, learners with disabilities only get an out-of-date view of the information but more often, students who perhaps need more assistance get less because they are using an impoverished version of the resource. The idea that learners with disabilities are a homogenous group that is well served by a single bland version of a resource is flawed. The third approach differs from the first two in a number of ways. Accessibility requirements are met not by a single resource but by a resource system. Rather than a single resource or a choice between two resource configurations, there can be as many configurations as there are learners. The ability of the computer mediated environment to transform the presentation, change the method of control, to disaggregate and re-aggregate resources and to supplement resources is capitalized upon to match resource presentation, organization, control and content to the needs of each individual learner. The availability of automated services as described makes it feasible for all learners to consider their needs and preferences and to record them for use by such a system. An approach that is inclusive in this way significantly increases the multiplicity of presentations available from a given source and thus shifts the responsibility for personalisation of presentations from the content provider, as designer of presentations, to the user. It also decreases the effort required on the part of individual content creators to anticipate the necessary combinations. It is an approach that lets the user select their desired content rather than one that depends on the website designers’ best guesses at the options that may be required. Extending the range of presentations of content as proposed by the third approach, the AccessForAll approach literally means moving towards mass customization of content provision. It is not merely relevant in the context 217
of people with special needs, or disabilities, but for everyone. It is applicable in a range of contexts as it will lead to highly personalized learning experiences, on demand learning and content assembly and publishing, automated generation of content, and more. The availability of the information about the needs and preferences of the user is the key feature here. Many existing systems provide descriptions of content, and many provide customized assemblies, but the new approach provides for these to be user driven. The notion of universality of personalization, of inclusiveness as a characteristic of learning resources for everyone, differentiates the AccessForAll approach from the more traditional universal accessibility of resources approach, described above. The goal is not new, and has been considered many times, but it is contended that the new approach to user needs and preferences management actually makes it possible and, perhaps then, a necessary response to the needs of learners if all learners are to be catered for equally. The possibility is not of great value, however, unless the costs associated with this approach are clearly appropriate. Given that accessibility is a requirement, not just a nice thing to do, there are already significant costs to be borne by many content providers. The third approach lessens the need for all resources to be developed in a strictly universally accessible way just in case they are required. It also allows for the resources to be provided to individual users to be distributed, meaning that they can be shared amongst content providers. This is not new in itself, but it is new that this sharing can be dynamically applied. If a content provider has not made some content fully accessible, another can make available the necessary extra content and the system can combine the components, so the authoring of accessible content becomes more of a distributed, cumulative activity. Although there is no data to prove that this is more efficient and cheaper, there is reason to believe it will be and research to test this can take place as soon as there are sufficient metadata and systems available for such testing to be undertaken. Describing Control and Display Requirements for interoperability One aspect of interoperability is the ability to share the same kind of information with others using the same systems and acting with the same goals. Another is to work across devices including using different hardware and software without losing the necessary ‘look and feel’ that facilitates learner mobility between devices. W3C has a Device Independence Working Group, another focused on the Mobile Web and a third working on Evaluation and Repair. All three Working Groups produce specifications that are important to the interoperability of AccessForAll. These groups do not work specifically on specifications for learners but learners are included in the user groups of concern to them. The Device Independence Working Group is responsible for a protocol known as Composite Capabilities and Personal Preferences (W3C CC/PP). Its general aim is to enable the quick identification of the needs of a device, such as a mobile phone or a desktop computer, so that user requests will initiate delivery of resource components that are necessary for the correct functioning of the device. A typical example is that when a large display page such as a newspaper page is to be presented on a tiny phone screen, it needs to be accompanied by a transformation that will facilitate navigation through the content without relying on a global view of it. Another important example is given when the mode of transmission of the content has to change to accommodate the device or user. The Device Independence Working Group, like all other W3C groups, is directed to take into account the accessibility aspects of this, and so Personal Preferences are included. The resulting CC/PP protocol provides an interoperable way of automatically transmitting information to Web servers from devices. This is what AccessForAll wants to do and so it is important that AccessForAll is in harmony with the CC/PP protocol. The W3C Mobile Web Working Group wants to ensure that information about users is available for devices wherever they are but is concerned that such information is not available for abuse by other people or agents. This requirement is one that is shared by the AccessForAll: there is no need for a person to be identified with or by the set of needs and preferences they choose to use (Nevile, 2005). The W3C Evaluation and Reporting Working Group have developed a language for managing the evaluation of content, typically the validation of it against formal test criteria. It enables the evaluations to be both distributed and cumulative, and at least identified with their evaluator and the time and date of evaluation. AccessForAll descriptions of learners’ needs and preferences, and resources’ accessibility characteristics, need to be trusted and this information is therefore of interest in their case too. 218
Page 1 and 2:
October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6:
How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8:
Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10:
3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12:
Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14:
From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16:
Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20:
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22:
World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24:
guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26:
As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28:
option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30:
of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32:
Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34:
the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36:
information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38:
Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40:
Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44:
The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46:
Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48:
Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50:
quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51 and 52:
process of designing high quality c
Page 53 and 54:
eLSE methodology Designers and eval
Page 55 and 56:
Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58:
on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60:
Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62:
Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64:
potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66:
For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68:
educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70:
A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72:
eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74:
any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76:
message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80:
increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82:
References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84:
Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86:
contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88:
espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90:
greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92:
Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94:
Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96:
courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98:
A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100:
Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102:
Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104:
Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106:
Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108:
Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110:
The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112:
the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115 and 116:
complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 117 and 118:
References ADL (Advanced Distribute
Page 119 and 120:
Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
Page 121 and 122:
(see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125 and 126:
The competitive nature of design cl
Page 127 and 128:
Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integ
Page 129 and 130:
materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132:
This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134:
E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136:
empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138:
Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146:
Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148:
2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150:
a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152:
of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154:
Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156:
Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158:
strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160:
P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162:
Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164:
AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166:
direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170:
Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172: Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174: In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176: members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178: Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180: The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182: technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184: participants that learning as a gro
Page 185 and 186: A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 187 and 188: the change agents to recognize the
Page 189 and 190: Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192: maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194: Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196: course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198: second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200: Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202: Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204: Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206: Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208: quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210: Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212: or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214: 2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216: professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218: Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220: Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221: The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 225 and 226: (including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228: international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230: information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232: DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234: Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236: TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238: The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240: Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242: Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244: correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246: Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248: Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250: Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?