INTEGRATING ACCESSIBILITY INTO THE DESIGN OF ONLINE LEARNING
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: THEORIES AND PRACTICE
Nantanoot Suwannawut
School of Library & Information Science
Indiana University, Bloomington
14th Annual Accessing Higher Ground
November 16, 2011
Overview of the Presentation
 Introduction of the study
 Accessibility and accessible e-learning
 Design of online systems and learning applications for persons
with visual impairment
 Methodologies for the design of accessible systems
Introduction of the Study
• Purpose:
To reviews the various theories, approaches, techniques, and
technologies that are developed to ensure the information access for
people with visual impairment, esp. in the design of online learning
systems.
• Goal:
To explore the literature and ways that best serve the design of
accessible systems for this group of learners.
• Scope:
To investigate appropriate models in order to integrate services and
enhance efficiency of the learning system., excluding the depth
exploration of technical issues.
Accessibility and accessible e-learning
• Definition of accessibility and associated terminologies
o I. What is accessibility?
o II. Accessibility and usability
o III. accessibility and web accessibility
• Perspectives, principles, and models of accessibility
o I. Human and legal rights to information accessibility
o II. Accessibility guidelines, standards, and policies
o III. Alternate approaches to accessibility
• Accessible e-learning.
o I. Definition and background
o II. Four accessibility models in e-learning
Definition of Accessibility
• “A process that aims to promote social inclusion by helping
people from disadvantaged groups or areas access jobs and
essential services" (Lincolnshire County Council, 2010).
• There are two approaches to accessibility: direct and indirect
access (Hackett & Parmanto, 2005).
• Accessibility focuses on making things usable by people with
disabilities, including temporary disabilities
• Designing for functional limitations overlaps with designing for
situational limitations.
Accessibility and Usability
• Usability is “extent to which a product can be used by specified
users to achieve specified goals effectively, efficiently and with
satisfaction in a specified context of use” (ISO 9241).
• Specified users = people who have disabilities, whereas
specified context = a wide range of situations including the use
of assistive technologies.
• People with disabilities encounter all the same problems that
people without disabilities do (Shneiderman, 2000).
• Most accessibility issues overlap with usability issues.
Perspectives, Principles, and Models of accessibility
• Accessibility is a matter of rights: human rights and legal rights.
• There are a number of accessibility guidelines, standards, and
policies (e.g. part III of the U.K. Disability Discrimination Act
(DDA) 1995, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Title 3,
the 1998 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act, the ISO 9241171, etc.)
• Among these accessibility guidelines, policies, and legislations,
websites and their components are one of the most commonly
mentioned (e.g. Section 1194.22 of the U.S. Section 508 on
Web-based intranet and Internet information and applications,
the Canadian Standard on the Accessibility, Interoperability and
Usability of Web Sites, etc.)
The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
• A working group under the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C)
• Established in 1999 and is sponsored by a variety of
government and industry supporters of accessibility.
• Follows the theory of universal web accessibility  one website
fits or is designed for all users.
• Three core principles of WAI: (a) authoring tools and
development environments for producing an accessible
interface and content of the web; (b) browsers, multimedia
players and assistive technologies for providing a completely
usable and accessible experience); and (c) accessible content
(Chisholm & Henry, 2005) → Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG), and
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UUAG).
Web content accessibility guidelines
(WCAG)
• Currently, there are two versions of the guidelines: the
WCAG 1.0 (1999) and WCAG 2.0 (2008).
• A specific checkpoint for each guideline performs as
one method of accessibility assessment with criteria
for success
• Numerous scholars and researchers continue to
comment on these documents, e.g. ambiguity,
complexity, and validity.
Alternate Approaches to Accessibility
I. The engineering approach (Brajnik, 2005)
o Views accessibility as a process, rather than a target, and to explicitly define
appropriate corporate policies, corporate guidelines and corporate
implementation plans to be used accordingly.
o Defines accessibility policy together with clear goals and missions, specifying
the level of accessibility needed to be achieved, and identifying the
categories of users that should benefit most from the implementation of the
policy.
II. Accessibility organization (Urban and Burks, 2006)
o View thes enterprise as some sort of organization that will handle and
support accessibility issues and ensure enforcement.
o Coordinates all of the organization resources and to bring various groups
together to discuss accessibility and discover, define, and articulate issues
related to accessibility of concern to both the whole enterprise and to its
individual parts.
Alternate Approaches to Accessibility (cont.)
III. The holistic view (Sloan et al., 2006)
o Adopts the inclusive view and promote the concept of usercentered design through personalization.
o No single universal solution can appropriately address the
needs of all of user groups. Instead, the developer can select
relevant guidelines in order to implement a solution which is
fit to the context of use or usable to the target audience, and
that would take into account any access requirements such
as user characteristics and technical requirements.
Accessible E-learning
• Accessible e-learning refers to design qualities that endeavor to
make online learning available to anyone irrespective of their
disability, and to ensure that the way it is implemented does
not create unnecessary barriers to him/her interacting with a
computer or connecting device (Cooper, 2006).
• Each individual uses different AT, browsing techniques,
navigation strategies, and so on.
• Common barriers are lack of alternative text or keyboard
support, frames without titles, absolute fontsize, poor color
contrast, etc.
• There is still broad evidence of the inaccessibility of e-learning
experiences (Parry, 2010)
The web accessibility integration model
(Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle, & Greenidge, 2004)
• Adopts an approach of web accessibility  An accessible
•
•
•
•
website must be sufficiently flexible to be used by assistive
technologies.
Tries to assess whether online curriculum content and delivery
software applications conform to the principles of
standard/legislative compliance or meet accessibility
requirements prescribed in the guidelines.
Relies on advancing technology, i.e. accessible web sites, to
solve e-learning problems and enhance learning for students
with disabilities.
Require skills to interpret and translate these principles and
their implications for the learning technology community
Compliance with the accessibility and de facto global e-learning
standards cannot guarantee a satisfactory experience for
learners with disabilities.
The Composite Practice Model
(Leung, Owens, Lamb, Smith, Shaw, & Hauff, 1999)
• Focuses on linking experts and utilizing their knowledge in
•
•
•
•
order to support students (= view people who use or are
relevant to technologies as important as the technology itself)
Believes in “best practice” and that the ultimate responsibility
lies with the governing body of the institution.
The AT service providers adopt the framework of the “actornetwork theory” (ANT) and a service delivery model.
The model can be regarded as lacking in universality because of
the wide scope of inspection for each agent.
The constant technological change and the many contextual
variables make it impractical to endorse a single model for
service delivery.
The Holistic Model
(Kelly, Phipps, & Howell, 2005)
• Places learners at the center of the development process and
focus on the context in which accessible e-learnings developed.
• Provides resources which are tailored for the students’
particular needs, and welcomes diversity.
• Can leave out the perspectives of stakeholders other than
students and perhaps lecturers.
• Can become tiresome for a student to have to continually
discuss his/her disability with various members of staff as they
go through their degree program in order for their needs to be
met.
The Contextualized Model of Accessible E-Learning
Practice in Higher Education (Seale, 2006)
• Views the development of accessible e-learning as a practice or
activity that can and will be mediated.
• Three components: (1) all the stakeholders of accessibility
within a higher education institution; (2) the context in which
these stakeholders have to operate: drivers and mediators; and
(3) how the relationship between the stakeholders and the
context influences the responses they make and the accessible
e-learning practices that develop.
• Two theoretical frameworks for practicing: communities of
practice and activity theory
• In order to establish a strong tie of community, it takes time
to build a strong network.
Summary of Accessibility Approaches in the
E-Learning Context
Web accessibility
integration model
Composite
practice model
Holistic model
Contextualized model
Focus
Web accessibility
Accessibility
organization
Holistic view
Engineering and corporate
approach
Philosophies
Technological
determinism
Universal Design
Stakeholders
Contextualism
Socio-culturalism
Actor-Network
theory
Learner-centered
theory
Community of Practice,
Activity theory
Theories
Methodological Conformance to
approaches
accessibility standards
and guidelines
Strengths
Legislative compliance,
general applicability
Weaknesses
Lack of subjectivity, lack
of skills in interpreting
standards
Best practice,
Active learner's
Service delivery involvement with
institutional
engagement
Integrity of
Feasibility,
governing
responsive to
bodies
individual needs
Mediation of constituents
Lack of
universality
Organizational
management
Lack of
cooperation,
specificity
clear division of
responsibilities, systematic
corpus of practice
Design of Online Systems and Learning
Applications for Persons with Disabilities
• Accessibility and interaction design
• Conceptual frameworks for design and accessibility
• Conceptual framework and considerations for design of
accessible online learning systems
Accessibility and Interaction Design
• Text-based interface -- GUI -- 3D internet or virtual worlds
• Non-visual interaction (auditory and soma esthetic senses)
• Most tools and software are essentially text-based interfaces
which return information in the form of voice synthesis or
Braille while offering keyboard control.
• Normally there are four strategies for screen reader users to
navigate and find web information: (1) Navigate through the
headings on the page; (2) Use the "Find" feature; (3) Navigate
through the links of the page; and (4) Read through the page.
• Misunderstanding or losing track of the content is one of the
most frequent problems encountered by screen reader users.
Universal Design (UD)
“Design of products and environments to be usable by
all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the
need for adaptation or specialized design" (Center for
Universal Design, 2008).
• A relatively new paradigm that emerged from
"barrier-free" or "accessible design”
• Seven core principles addressing the key concepts of
universal design: Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use,
Simple and Intuitive Design, Perceptible Information,
Tolerance for Error, Low Physical Effort, and Size and
Space Appropriate for Approach and Use.
Conceptual Framework and Considerations for
Design of Accessible Online Learning Systems
"A framework for designing educational environments that
enable all learners to gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for
learning" (Center of Applied Special Technology, 2007).
• Creates flexible learning goals, instructions, materials, and
assessment that accommodate needs of learners with the use
of new technologies.
• Three main principles: provision of multiple, flexible methods
of presentation, methods of expression, and options for
engagement.
• Instructional and pedagogical practices should also be applied
in the design framework.
Recommendations for the Design of LMS
• Provide learning contents in a variety of formats and can be
•
•
•
•
•
rendered in different platforms. This may include lowtechnology learning aids such as tactile charts and diagrams.
Offer choices of assignments in various formats and styles.
Provide additional links to supporting materials, and they
should be opened in a different window.
Allow extra time on synchronous and asynchronous
communications, assignments and exams.
Provide recording feature for synchronous communication for
further revision.
Offer personalized features, e.g. calendar, evaluation and
assessment.
Recommendations for the Design of LMS
(cont.)
• Offer consistency in layout and a structured page organization
•
•
•
•
•
with simple navigation.
Ensure that using colors is not the only visual means to convey
information or distinguish a visual element, e.g. comments,
feedbacks, of sharing materials.
Provide the summary of information on tables or visual
presentation for repetition and reinforcement.
Provide Directional and warning cues, e.g. a pop-up window
with audio signals.
Allow for correction/editing with hints to correct an error.
Integrate accessibility features such as captioning, speed
control, volume adjustment, font sizing, and color contrast.
Recommendations for the Design of LMS
(cont.)
• Provide information about the accessibility of the system and
•
•
•
•
course syllabus.
Provide help tools or Tutorials for prerequisite knowledge.
Provide links to support services, e.g. DSS office, library, and IT
department.
Integrate a tool to check browser capabilities.
Provide a variety of languages and translation tool.
Methodologies for the Evaluation of
Accessible Systems
• Guideline-based or standards review (automated tools &
human/manual check)
• Heuristic evaluation
• Cognitive walkthroughs
• Usability testing
Guideline-based or Standards Review
(automated tools & human/manual check)
• The method to assess if a product or system conforms to specified
•
•
•
•
•
recommendations and/or standards for interface design.
Accessibility standards reviews are often more rigorous than typical
user interface reviews, particularly when conformance to a standard
is a legal requirement (Henry and Grossnickle, 2004).
Can be conducted manually by evaluators or through automated
tools.
The automated tools require a small time commitment.
Some prescriptive guidelines are found to be voluminous, vague,
conflicting, or divorced from the context in which sites are being
developed (Ivory & Megraw, 2005).
There are issues of subjective checkpoints, so the manual check is
also recommended.
Heuristic Evaluation
• The method in which one or more reviewers check whether
each design element conforms to a list of design or usability
principles and take notes where the product does not follow
those principles.
• Majority of problems found through this heuristic method are
rather specific and low-priority, and individual evaluators can
identify a relatively small number of overall usability issues
(Robin et al, 1991).
• During the review, evaluators are allowed to consider any
additional usability principles or results that come to mind that
may be relevant for any specific dialogue element.
• Provides a holistic perspective, not restricted only to the
accessibility standards or guidelines conformance.
Cognitive Walkthroughs
• The method based on cognitive theory; it is a formalized way of
imagining people's thoughts and actions when they use an
interface for the first time without training (Lewis & Rieman,
1993).
• Four elements are required: the task description, description of
who the users will be and what relevant knowledge they
possess, description or a prototype of the interface, and the
complete correct action sequence (Lewis & Rieman, 1993).
• A fully functioning prototype is not necessary for evaluation.
• The method is time-consuming, and claimed to detect far more
problems than actually exist and potential problems could be
overlooked due to a narrow focus of the technique (Digital
Accessibility Team, 2009).
Usability Testing
• Usability testing (or user testing) is a usability evaluation
method that provides quantitative and qualitative data from
actual users performing real tasks with a product.
• The method usually involves three major components:
potential users, representative tasks with a prototype, and
systematic observation under controlled conditions.
• Standard protocols for usability testing can be used with users
with disabilities, but with few modifications (Henry &
Grossnickle, 2004).
• Other detailed considerations in conducting usability testing
with users with disabilities such as determining Participant
Characteristics and choosing the test location.
References
Brajnik, G. (2005a). Engineering accessibility through corporate policies. Retrieved January 18, 2010,
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.78.7362&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Center for Universal Design, NCSU. (2008). Homepage. Retrieved 28 May, 2009, from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/
Center of Applied Special Technology [CAST.] (2007). Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved 30 April,
2010, from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/UDL/
Cooper, M. (2006). Making online learning accessible to disabled students: an institutional case study.
ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14(1), 103-115.
Digital Accessibility Team. (2009). Cognitive walkthrough. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from
http://www.tiresias.org/tools/cognitive_walkthrough.htm
Henry, S. L., & Grossnickle, M. (2004). Just ask: Accessibility in the user-centered design process. Georgia
Tech Research Corporation. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Retrieved from http://www.uiaccess.com/accessucd/
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (n.d.). ISO 9241-171:2008: Ergonomics of humansystem interaction  Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=39080
References (cont.)
Ivory, M. Y., & Megraw, R. (2005). Evolution of web site design patterns. ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (TOIS), 23(4), 463-497.
Kelly, B., Phipps, L., & Howell, C. (2005), Implementing a holistic approach to e-learning accessibility. In
C. Cook & D. Whitelock (Eds.), Exploring the Frontiers of E-learning: Borders, Outposts and Migration,
ALT-C 2005 12th International Conference Research Proceedings, ALT, Oxford. Retrieved from
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/alt-c-2005/
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K-D. (2004). Improving web accessibility: A study of
webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 269-288.
Lewis, C., & Rieman, J. (1993). Task-centered user interface design: A practical introduction. Retrieved
January 3, 2010, from http://hcibib.org/tcuid/index.html#notice
Lincolnshire County Council. (2010). Definition of accessibility. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from
http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/residents/environment-andplanning/environment/accessibility/definition-of-accessibility/56334.article
Leung, P., Owens, J., Lamb, G., Smith, K., Shaw, J. & Hauff, R. (1999). Assistive education. Retrieved
October 29, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99-6/eip99_6.pdf
Parry, M. (2010). Colleges lock out blind students online, Chronicle of higher education. Retrieved
December 14, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/BlindStudents-DemandAccess/125695/?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
References (cont.)
Petty, R.E. (2010). Technology access in the workplace and higher education for persons with visual
impairments: An examination of barriers and discussion of solutions. Independent Living Research
Utilization at TIRR. Houston, Texas. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from
www.bcm.edu/ilru/html/.../Technology_Access_Visual_Impairments.DOC
Robin, J., James, R. M., Cathleen, W., & Kathy, U. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: a
comparison of four techniques, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems: Reaching through Technology. New Orleans, Louisiana, United States: ACM. 119-124. Doi:
10.1145/108844.108862
Seale, J. (2006). The rainbow bridge metaphor as a tool for developing accessible e-learning practices in
higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(2). Retrieved from
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/56/53
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 85- 91.
Sloan, D., Dickinson, A., McIlroy, N., & Gibson, L. (2006). Evaluating the usability of online accessibility
information. Retrieved November, 8, 2010, from
http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/dsloan/usableaccessibilityadvice.htm
Urban, M., & Burks, M. R. (2006). Implementing accessibility in the enterprise. In J. Thatcher, M. Burks,
C. Heilmann, S. Henry, A. Kirkpatrick, P. Lauke, et al., Web accessibility (pp. 69-83). Apress.
Thank you
for your attention!
Any comments and feedbacks are welcome:
nansuwan@indiana.edu