Accessible Online Learning
by
Patricia Hendricks

Instructional applications delivered online lift an installation and management burden from local educational administrators and allow students to receive accurate and updated information. However online content is not always accessible to students with disabilities. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau (2000) documented that more than 24 million Americans over the age of 5 have at least one disability that limits their use of the computer and Internet (e.g., vision, hearing, or dexterity skills). This chapter of the MAR*TEC Technology Coordinators Handbook describes practical strategies for evaluating online learning to determine if it is accessible for students with disabilities. Specifically, this chapter defines and introduces a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and describes strategies that educators may use to determine a product’s accessibility compliance.

 

Voluntary Product Accessibility Template

VPATs are produced and distributed by the application provider and correspond to the electronic and information technology standards as outlined by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The VPAT is a three-column chart that details each of the Section 508 standards, explains the supporting features of the product, and provides vendor remarks and explanations. Although VPATs are designed to help federal contracting agents make preliminary purchasing decisions, they can also assist educators. Technology coordinators should encourage their vendors to produce and distribute VPATs. This template takes the burden of accessibility determination from the educator and places it on the application provider. If educators are not familiar with VPATs, they should browse the VPATs of products they use everyday to understand the information that the VPAT provides. Microsoft distributes VPATs for its products online at http://www.microsoft.com. Macromedia also produces VPATs for its software products; the Dreamweaver VPAT is found online at http://www.macromedia.com.

If the application provider cannot supply a VPAT, educators may review the product using these practical strategies:

1) Use an evaluation software tool

2) Navigate through the online content without using a mouse

3) Test the product using a screen reader, and

4) Test the product with students who use assistive devices (Bohman & Anderson, 2004).

 

X/HTML Evaluation Tools

Evaluation software provides information about accessibility problems of content distributed through a web browser. There are several free tools that can be used to test products page by page. The Web Accessibility Versatile Evaluator [(WAVE), 2004a] tool displays icons on the selected page. These icons are color-coded and point to potential accessibility problems:

A strength of WAVE is that it provides the educator a graphical description of possible accessibility problems and allows for human judgment to make the final decision. WebAim (2004) explains this feature with an example from Amazon.com:

In the case of the green icon which says "alt”, the user is shown both the image and its alt text. In this case, the image says "search." The alt text says "Search Amazon.com." The alt text doesn't match the text in the graphic exactly, but it is pretty close. I wouldn't say that this is an error so much as a slight inconsistency, since the alt text communicates the same concept. The point here, though, is that I am able to make that judgment. The WAVE presents these elements side by side so that I can decide for myself whether this alt text is appropriate. The WAVE assists me in making an informed human judgment (p. 2).

CynthiaSays (2003) is another online tool that can test one page of online content at a time (http://www.cynthiasays.com). This software produces a report detailing each of the standards in Section 508 and indicates whether the page passed or failed to meet this standard. The report also details manual checks that are necessary for evaluating whether or not the content is accessible.

Commercial products such as InFocus by SSB Technologies, AccVerify by HiSoftware, and Lift by UsableNet evaluate entire websites for accessibility. Evaluation software is very useful for quickly demonstrating potential accessibility problems. However human judgment is always required when using an evaluation tool.

 

Keyboard Accessibility

After compiling lists or reports of potential problems from an evaluation software tool, educators should try to navigate the site using only the keyboard. Students who are blind or those with limited mobility may not be able to use a mouse. Educators need to document navigation problems.

 

Use with a Screen Reader

To determine whether online content is compatible, educators must access the content through a screen reader. JAWS and Window Eyes are the most common screen readers used by students who are blind. Screen reading software is complicated by a high learning curve. Therefore, it is advisable to combine this step with the next step: user testing.

 

User Testing

Professional literature reminds educators that although software may or may not document accessibility problems, it is ultimately the user’s success that determines whether the online content is accessible. Bohan and Anderson (2004) state: “All people experience Web content differently because all users are different . . . It is impossible to account for every kind of person with a disability under every type of circumstance” (p. 2). Therefore, the final step in determining if online content is accessible is to watch a student using an assistive device and engaging with the content. The World Web Consortium (W3C, 2005) has developed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, which state that online content should be

Furthermore, the user must be able to start a task, perform all of the necessary intermediary functions, and finish a task. This means that the student should be able to navigate to the content page; access the background information (videos should be closed-captioned); participate in the online learning activities (e.g., online discussions, learning games); and complete the exams, quizzes, and tests (assistive device should detect and complete fill-in-the-blank boxes).

 

Conclusion

Students with disabilities have a range of abilities and disabilities that educators must consider when selecting online content. In order to meet all students’ needs, educators should request VPATs from the vendor. If a VPAT is not available, educators should use a software evaluation tool, navigate through the content without a mouse, and use a screen reader to access the content or watch a student access the content using an assistive device.

MAR*TEC is collecting your stories. Send information about accessible online content and your experience in evaluation to phendric@temple.edu

 

References

Bohman, P., & Anderson, S. (2004). Toward user-centered, scenario-based planning and evaluation tools. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.webaim.org/techniques/articles/scenarios/

CynthiaSays (2003). CynthiaSays Portal. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.cynthiasays.com/

W3C (2005). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

WAVE (2004a) Wave 3.0 web accessibility tool. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.wave.webaim.org/index.jsp

WebAim (2004) Introduction: 8 Steps of Institutional Coordination and Reform. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.webaim.org/coordination/implementation/

U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Disability Status 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf

 

Useful Websites

HiSoftware (2003). AccVerify. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.hisoftware.com/access/index.html

SSB Technologies (2004). InFocus. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.ssbtechnologies.com/products/infocus

UsableNet (2004). Lift Machine. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.usablenet.com