There are a lot of artefacts inside and outside my organisation which create points of focus for developing accessible resources. Internal artefacts include our policy, values and mission statement. We are close to student feedback and this provides key areas to focus on. External artefacts include a wide range of resources from websites, blogs, books and software. I think the development of new technology also is an important artefact, so for example, currently we are looking at how the Sony E-Readers can be utilised to host accessible study material. I think sometimes, we can over rely on accessibility tools and do not apply human judgement to whether it is the right thing to do or not.  There is lots of evidence of mutual engagement and communities – we have a culture of working groups and bringing stakeholders together from the whole constellation of practice. I think Figure 13.1 in Seale (2006, p.18) is a useful trigger showing the constellation of accessible e-learning practice. It ensures everyone is included. Different subject experts do need to work together. The constellation would be the same in my organisation that Seale (2006) suggests, but perhaps with some additional stakeholders, such as external procurement providers and printers.

Three issues identified from Seale (2006) chapter 13 are:-

1.       The issue around needing a theory, model or framework to help us understand how the different stakeholders might form a community and work together to develop accessible e-learning.

2.       If reification prevails over participation, if everything is reified but with little opportunity for shared experience and interactive negotiation, then there may not be enough overlap in participation to recover a coordinated and generative meaning

3.       Communities of practice does not deal in great detail with conflicts and tension and contradictions that may influence the development of practice

Seale (2006) identifies six potential areas for conflict or contradiction within an organisation or activity system; with regards to individual responses to accessibility. There is a contradiction in my organisation, as Seale (2006) discusses, which relates to poorly designed tools. Witt and McDermott (2002) state difficulties in interpreting accessibility guidelines. They are not clear and open to interpretation and there are many different guidelines. We also have difficulty in interpreting the results of many evaluation tools.

Seale (2006) discusses conflict between stakeholders on responsibility for accessibility. This occurs in my organisation in terms of some stakeholders not seeing their full responsibility and contribution required to achieve accessibility. Academics see it as the responsibility of the technical experts.

A contradiction occurs between community and division of labour. Any accessibility objective that requires everyone to be included will fail if relevant stakeholders are not included.

Seale discusses contradictions around consistent rules of practice to enable practitioners to use the tools available to them. I would not say this is relevant in my organisation as everyone is clear on WCAG and discussions are made on whether to follow this or not.

Contradictions can also occur where rules are inconsistent or weak. Again, I think this is not applicable in my organisation and staff naturally work alongside the tools and we have testing teams.

Seale (2006) also explains a contradiction around the tools if they are unable to be used in the way intended. I think this does occur, but not necessarily as a contradiction. I think we do discuss if the results come up not as expected and we delve deeper to see if the result suggests changes that are applicable. Again, it is down to using the tools, but also human judgement.

I think it is helpful to conceptualise the development of accessibility within my organisation as an activity system. Engestrom’s (1987) systemic model of activity is a helpful model to demonstrate the linkages between stakeholders and what needs to be considered. At a top level, it does help us consider changes and developments – in terms of highlighting who and what needs to be included in a wider context, beyond the guidelines and rules.

Three issues identified from Seale’s (2006) chapter 12 are:

1.    The number of tools available and the issues that this results in.

2.    Consideration of all the stakeholders and wider context, not just rules

3.    Witt and McDermott (2002) state difficulties in interpreting accessibility guidelines. They are not clear and open to interpretation and there are many different guidelines. We also have difficulty in interpreting the results of many evaluation tools.

 There are incentives I think for my organisation to develop or improve the accessibility of its online resources. These are around reputation and branding and working in line with its company values and mission. There are also incentives from students and their feedback, needs and desires for accessible resources. There are also clear key performance indicators – accessibility is a key measure.

My assumption at the start of the course was that if you followed the WAI guidelines, then this means accessibility achieved – however, this is far from the truth. An automated testing tool is just that – a tool – and needs to have human judgement applied and if necessary contradicting the tool in order to meet the needs of the users in context. Accessibility and guidelines are not always happy bedfellows, and it could be perfectly possible to have a very usable or accessible site that breaks all of the guidelines, and a site that meets all of the guidelines that is still horribly inaccessible. Phipps et al (2002) discuss how the Bobby logo (a well known automatic accessibility checking tool) can be used inappropriately to indicate that a site is accessible, when in some people’s perception it is not. Seale uses an archaeology metaphor to try to encourage learning technologists to dig deeper beneath the surface of accessibility guidelines and standards. I would use the analogy of a judge and jury and how all the facts need to be considered and a human judgement is required. It is not a straight formula to resolve a case and neither is it to determine if a site is accessible or not. For example, it can be counter-productive to add alt tags to all images, especially if the images are decorative or carry no meaning – yet this would result in a low scoring on some the accessibility tests.

I think it is everybody’s responsibility to ensure accessibility. Students must provide feedback, learning technologists must invite others to be involved. I think the debate is useful because it raises the profile to everyone about responsibility of accessibility.

I think we need to trust a combination of the tests and human judgement and for a variety of judgements to be involved, just like on a jury.

3 issues identified from Seale (2006) chapter 11 are:

1.       Tension over conflicting rules and that some people are working to one set of rules and another group to a different set of rules.

2.       Understanding what influences the development of accessible e-learning practice, other than a set of rules

3.       It appears unlikely that accessible e-learning practice will be fully developed across all higher education institutions because some have decided not to compete for the disabled student market.

This is a good example of a game: http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/philosophy_ethics/playprisondilema.html

Games present an opportunity to join the two basic types of interactivity – peer to peer activities and computer activities involving only one student and the computer. This could be something like a national leader board of top scores, but it could also be a virtual environment in which students meet and solve problems collaboratively. A prominent example that is being developed by the Open University is the 3D massively multiplayer online role-playing game MMORPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG Second life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life

What happens when we push the level of realism as far as we can? Arguably we reach a point where games turn into truly interactive simulations.

Returning to second life, real-time 3D graphics rely on dedicated graphics chips to offer a rasterised representation of a 3D world. This approach begins with primitive geometric shapes (triangles and polygons) that are made to look more lifelike using shaders. One shortcoming of this approach is that reflection, refraction, shadows and realistic lighting are very difficult to emulate, especially when mirroring objects face one another. Doors can be tricky too: doors will open and close gradually, but typically the real-time graphics engine will only distinguish between two states – open and closed – so that we sometimes see parts of the entrance hall before the door to a Second Life building has swung open.

The goal is to achieve reflection, shade and lighting on a par with films consisting entirely of computer-generated imagery  (CGI). The principal technique used is ray-tracing: the computer determines the paths of rays of light hitting each pixel on the screen until an overall picture begins to form. If a ray of light hits a mirror, it will change direction, making reflections of reflections possible; if it hits ground fog or clouds, complex light effects can be achieved. The drawback of this approach is that it is very labour intensive for the processor.

In order to turn Second Life into a simulation that allows us to investigate the effect of sunlight breaking through a thick layer of cloud on a rainy day – ideally forming a rainbow in the process – we need to replace the current, rasterised rendering model of Second Life with one that uses ray-tracing at an appropriate speed.

With careful programming Second Life already does a fair job representing the effects of gravity and movement on virtual objects, so the next challenge is to make sure that light effects are adequately represented as well. (To this we could add that we have barely begun to find satisfactory ways of generating ambient sound to break the ghostly silence that characterises current virtual worlds.) Unsurprisingly, current research in this area has tended to focus on games, but there can be no doubt that virtual worlds have the potential to change the way we teach and do research in some areas.

.

http://curbcut.net/ has loads of information on accessibility

http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/accessibility/ is a very good blog for information about accessibility, usability, inclusive education and universal instructional design.

http://www.anitrapavka.com/index.html provides news, commentary and articles on topics concerning web accessibility.

http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/03/accessible-design-for-the-deaf/ Joe Dolson is a professional web designer who focuses on accessibility and web standards. He writes about deafness and web issues.

http://www.456bereastreet.com/ provides good insight into the world of web standards, accessibility and usability.

http://weblog.200ok.com.au/  this blog by Ben Buchanan discusses web development paying special attention to accessibility and web standards.

http://accessify.com/news/ this sites helps you in making work more accessible

I make use of lots of mobile learning devices – tablet PC, laptop, mobile phone, wireless keyboard and mice, PDA, ipod and digital camera. The advantage is that devices can be accessible and personalised and portable. Exploring ways in which personal tools and technologies can meet the needs of individual learners is extremely beneficial. Devices can provide a variety of routes to essential information for students and ensures parity of access to tools and technologies for disadvantaged learners. The downsides are cost and training in the use of devices; providing battery charging facilities, making usb drives accessible (usb memory sticks), not all students have bandwidth and there are multiple tools and platforms for students to be supported on in their learning. An advantage is that the tools are familiar and can be adapted to individual needs and offers flexibility and increased sense of ownership over the process of learning. There is the opportunity for ‘just in time’ learning and maintaining a network of peers, friends and tutors through instant messaging, texting, internet access on the move – however managing learning in the context of a demanding lifestyle can be difficult. It is important to choose the most appropriate tool for the task.

It is important to use more than one evaluation method and to understand the approach being used. Most browsers use WAI-ARIA. It is important that test results can be interpreted and that understanding is gained to what is important and relevant. I felt that evaluation is dependent on a remote validation service or toolbar and it does not seem enough and that proven hands-on testing is required. It would be great if there was a button that could be pressed that says, ‘accessible’ or ‘not accessible’, but this doesn’t work since humans are needed when it comes to evaluating some parts of the guidelines, and parts of some learning materials. I’ve also started to question the guidelines and whether one fit is appropriate for all. The WAI-ARIA guidelines may only focus on the minimum and there could be much more I could be doing. Guidelines can help people, but they can also cause confusion. I do think they work if produced with the right person in mind and produced at the right level. Guidelines are needed to cover all eventualities; provide further knowledge; updates, information etc. There are so many different guidelines – because guidelines are produced with different people in mind. They are produced in different countries with different legislation and law. There are different guidelines for different purposes and to provide different definitions and requirements and to meet different standards. It is very difficult to produce guidelines that provides a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The resource has to be tested by those students who have accessibility needs and time for building and testing and consulting needs to be planned

I focused on five of the biggest names of the interactive web: forums, wikis, blogs, polls and instant messaging:

Forums – forums collapse the distance between students: it is usually fun to read what other people have written and it can be rewarding (if daunting) to see what other people make of one’s own contributions

a forum allowing multiple threads automatically sorts discussions by topic for future reference

most forums are equipped with a search box, so it’s usually easy to find important messages

Wikis – have great potential for collaboration

Blogs – can stop important posts being buried in threads entitled ‘testing testing’ or ‘hiya’.

Polls – foster an appreciation of the diversity of opinion among students and are a good way to provide feedback

Instant messaging – allow for communication in real time.

I found this useful article on web2.0:

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2008/06/Can-We-Trust-Students-to-Learn-in-Web-20.aspx

and this webcast:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/08/podcast07lawriephippsdavidwhite

I focused on five of the biggest names of the interactive web: forums, wikis, blogs, polls and instant messaging

Forums – Forums are asynchronous by design, but firmly grounded in real time in practice: waiting for responses that may never materialise is one problem; another is the latecomer’s dilemma: why should I bother to post when everyone else has moved on? Disabled students may find it difficult to keep up. Often forums do not have a spell check function which can alienate dyslexic students. Forum threads frequently slide off-topic; the moderator (if there is one) is free to intervene, of course, but may alienate the contributors in doing so.

Wikis – a real-life wiki can get messy; any moderately busy wiki in an educational setting is likely to present the reader with a multitude of voices and stylistic conventions

Students in a tutor group might well start correcting the typos of other students; sometimes they won’t be typos but conventions, and even if there is a genuine error students may resent their peers editing their contributions

Groups of students are likely to descend on a single wiki at the same time; even where wikis are divided into sections that can be edited simultaneously, some students will be locked out while someone else is crafting the perfect sentence.

On the whole, though, Wikis clearly have great potential for online collaboration, but there are issues for disabled students.

Blogs – can be thought of as a forum that allows only one user to post new topics – which may be more manageable for disabled students and allow others to comment. These comments can be checked and approved before being published.

Polls – polls could play a part in fostering an appreciation of the diversity of opinion amongst students. Taking polls can provide snapshots of views and perceptions and be a helpful check on how students are feeling. It is a useful way to gather feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching materials.

Instant messaging – may be useful for students to ask questions, participate in tutorials for online material, facilitate communication and collaboration.

It is important that a Lecturer appreciates that one style does not fit all and is flexible enough to try different approaches for various learners and to do this by getting to know their students and developing one-to-one relationships and also building relationships between their student peers. Honey and Mumford (1986) categorise learners into four styles: activities, theorists, pragmatists and reflectors. A good lecturer will be one that is novel and participatory enough for activists; intellectually rigorous enough for theorists; practical enough for pragmatists and leisurely enough for reflectors. Knowing the various learning styles is one step forward in considering student needs and meeting their learning characteristics and how people process information most effectively; how students respond to the way it is presented, be it, for example, through the written word, visual representations, verbal discussion or practical demonstration.

It must be recognized of course, not to make something ‘substantive’ out of a metaphor.  We don’t actually have learning styles; that is a metaphor that helps make sense of why some people find some learning contexts difficult.  There are quite a few people who really dislike the concept of ‘learning styles’, for example, Reynolds (1997) challenges the idea of learning styles.