D4.2.3

=E–learning design and (re)development procedures include formal testing and review of accessibility support with student participants. =

Evidence
Although assistive technologies are readily available to enable ICT access for those with disabilities, they often only help overcome the first of many barriers. Discussing the importance of universal design principles (The Center for Universal Design, 2006), Burgstahler et al., (2004) say that ‘[w]hen designers apply these principles, physical environments, communications, and products they develop can be accessed by people with a variety of characteristics in categories that include height, age, race, ethnicity, gender, native language, and levels of ability to hear, see, move, and speak’ (p. 236). Burgstahler et al. also point to the importance of implementing assurance and review requirements for e-learning design and content accessibility, adding that addressing accessibility is an ‘ongoing effort, not a one-time project’ (p. 243). In conclusion they propose that by applying universal design principles as courses are created learning becomes ‘accessible to anyone anywhere at any time’ (p. 244).

Resources
Evidence of capability in this area is seen through design and implementation practices that use a variety of complementary approaches to support student learning, including a variety of media. Accessibility should be explicitly considered during the design process and standards such as those provided by the W3C (http://www.w3c.org/WAI/) used to ensure compliance. Formal and regular reviews involving students as key stakeholders should be conducted both of courses and the supporting standards, templates and staff development materials.

Seale (2006) provides extensive lists of resources that are available to assist with testing and content repair tools. But concludes that there is no substitute for user testing.

Sloan & Walker (2008) discuss the evaluation of accessibility. They suggest a methodology that combines automated and manual evaluation techniques with usability reviews involving disabled evaluators. They also provide a table of key findings of a review that they conducted which exposes issues surrounding the creation of accessible content. Having undertaken their review process they recommend that a publicly available pool of accessibility reviews of authoring tools may support organisations faced with selecting a tool that best fits their needs.

Kelly et al. (2007) suggest a holistic approach including pedagogical issues, available resources, organisation culture and usability. Their ‘Tangram’ and stakeholder models overlap to mediate good design through more than merely the provision of guidelines. These authors identify seven examples of stakeholder responses to both the drivers and mediators of accessibility. It is also noted that some cautions about the accessibility of ‘institutional repositories’ particularly of PDF documents, will need to be addressed. Overall, Kelly et al. coin the term ‘Accessibility 2.0’ which is characterised by the following attributes: User focus, rich set of stakeholders, sustainability, always beta, flexibility, diversity, blended aggregated solutions, accessibility as a bazaar not a cathedral.