Web+2.0+&+Accessibility+Issues

My heartfelt appreciation to Christie, Elsa and Josh for their useful feedback. This page would be less complete without their thoughts. Thanks!
 * Web 2.0 & Accessibility Issues **

 The web is a more vibrant place than what it was two decades ago. When it first made public in the 90s, the mental model of web development conceived it as a medium solely to publish information and pages were designed to be static, connected by links embedded within them. Users were assumed to be passive and web sites were centrally managed by web masters. Over the years, while retaining some of these earlier features, pages are now designed to be more dynamic in nature and emphasize on usability and connectivity. The web today commonly known as Web 2.0, saw the introduction of search engines to facilitate navigation and has created a global community to interact, collaborate and social network (Gibson, 2007). With emerging technologies supporting such activities, the web has witnessed a dramatic shift in the way information is produced and consumed; one that has users assuming both roles interchangeably with fellow users.  As user oriented applications and services are introduced through the web, accessibility to information become less homogenous for everyone, although one may claim that accessibility was never equal in the first place. Nonetheless, the issue presented here is that Web 2.0 has not only been unable to mitigate the accessibilities challenges identified in its previous version but has widened the gap towards attaining full accessibility. ** What is Accessibility? **   Accessibility is about making web content available by people who are either able or disabled. It is about being inclusive to make web pages easy to navigate and for everyone to view its content at ease, regardless of their technical, physical and mental restrictions on the client side (Kern, 2008). Given that Web 2.0 is about inclusion, harnessing the wisdom of many to reach new conclusions and optimizing research and learning (Gibson, 2007), it makes sense for everyone to be able to access the web without being prejudiced. ** Why Address Accessibility? **
 * Greater impact **

Addressing accessibility to instructions through the web has a greater impact to the positive effect of learning today. This is especially since the number of web users has swell to a current high of about 2 billion [1] and represents around 30% of the global population. Since 2003-2009, the web population has been expanding at an average rate of 13% annually and it is poised to continue growing as internet penetration increases among emerging economies. The continual growth of the web population brings about two implications if accessibility is left unmanaged. First, a greater diversity means that there is a bigger group of people (in absolute terms) who are less capable to access information. This considers that the previous web environment (Web 1.0) has not entirely eliminated the disparity in web accessibility and many will continue to experience challenges to obtain instructions online. Second, there is a greater benefit to improve accessibility since the content is able to reach out to a wider pool of audience. Any slight improvement in accessibility will return more substantial results as opposed to days when there are fewer users. _  [1] Source: WDI and GDF 2010. Retrieved from []


 * Altruistic reasons **

The virtue was unselfishness in accessing information applies here. Not everyone access or able to access the web akin the majority of the users. There is a need to consider the accessibility of users with disabilities, of lower education or for older people (Kern, 2008). Addressing accessibility for these groups of users is a sensible move since it would naturally enhance the accessibility of able users as well, making the benefits yield far greater than it actually represents (Kern, 2008). Disabled users are perhaps at the greatest disadvantage if accessibility is not addressed. After all, the web is an important medium for the disabled to gain opportunities for employment, learning and entertainment (Brewer, 2005). Through assistive technology, people with disabilities are enabled to process information just like everyone else albeit they perform them in a more complex and slower manner.

** Commercial value **

 More organizations are relying on the web to disseminate instructions and there is greater commercial value to addressing issues of accessibility. Today, education institutions are aggressively leveraging upon e-Learning to keep a lid on their tight operating cost while maintaining the capacity to raise enrollment. Governments have an interest in the web’s offer of low cost and high accessibility to provide citizens with first class public services. Today, e-Government services are common and citizens access their utilities or taxes through the web at their convenience. Even corporate companies are jumping on the bandwagon, using the Web for e-Training to provide employees with effective learning and training opportunities. ** How Web 2.0 Reduces Accessibility? **  <span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Web 1.0 presented a much simpler issue for web designers to address accessibility. There were fewer technologies needed to enable publishing, much lesser content to manage and a handful of devices that needed to be accommodated. However, things have become more complex in Web 2.0 and getting instructions to reach people through the web effectively would now require a more deliberate approach.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">The technologies behind Web 2.0 **

<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) and Adobe Flash are the revolutionary technologies that shaped the web interface today. Technically, AJAX is not entirely a technology but a new method to handling client requests faster. Without dwelling into its technicality, it is a programming method that enables users to obtain quicker responses (instantly at times) from the web by creatively reducing wait time. AJAX is used extensive by search engines to suggest results or keywords even before the users have completed his/her entry into the search textbox. It is also used in applications such as Google Map to load portion of the maps only when required. The other technology is Adobe Flash, a platform that fuses multimedia into user interfaces to deliver a rich web navigating experience. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Both technologies have gained extensive popularity among developers and it is not hard to see why. They are efficient, attractive, highly interactive, and made applications more user-friendly. However, assistive technologies [2] have yet to catch up with the progress of such advanced web development and therefore the use of such technologies has hindered accessibility for the disabled. For instance, assistive technologies are unable to interpret as quickly as AJAX is able to return page results. Continually changing or updated text also makes it difficult for screen readers to interpret websites for visually impaired internet users (Madden, 2008). On the other hand, applications developed by Flash contain high animations that may become confusing to the disabled and eventually overwhelm them. It also embeds objects in pages so a lot of assistive technologies are unable to read them (Everett, 2006), although there are techniques to overcome such limitations. In any case, such programming method opposes the idea behind Semantic Web, where a universal format should be adhered so that data may be interpreted correctly by different applications. <span style="color: #4e7dbf; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">_ <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> [2] Assistive technology is technology used by individuals with disabilities in order to perform functions that might otherwise be difficult or impossible. Assistive technology can include mobility devices such as walkers and wheelchairs, as well as hardware, software, and peripherals that assist people with disabilities in accessing computers or other information technologies. For example, people with limited hand function may use a keyboard with large keys or a special mouse to operate a computer, people who are blind may use software that reads text on the screen in a computer-generated voice, people with low vision may use software that enlarges screen content, people who are deaf may use a TTY (text telephone), or people with speech impairments may use a device that speaks out loud as they enter text via a keyboard – //Extracted from University of Washington. Retrieved from// // [] //

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">** The extensive use of rich media **

<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Media has been touted as one of the best learning materials. If a picture speaks a thousand words, imagine what a video clip may achieve in class. However, the perceived effectiveness of using these materials in learning hinges on the assumption that all learners have the capability to interpret them. But this would not be entirely true if the learner does not have access to high speed broadband since the bandwidth requirements for accessing such media content is higher than browsing traditional web pages. Learners who are color blind or deaf would also be unable to interpret such content if alternate text or captions are not provided. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">** Multiple interfaces **

<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> When computers were the primary means to access the web, the webmaster had only to worry about displaying pages correctly on the visitor’s desktop. Today, a myriad of devices are used to access web content. Each device brings along its set of unique challenge to ensure that the content are displayed according to what it really represents. As people demand greater accessibility, the use of such devices will continue to grow, leading to a need to cater for them eventually. Besides, the diversity of web technologies used by these devices did not help either. Mobile operating systems such as iOS, Symbian, Andriod do not function entirely the same and browsers supports varied in their proprietary ways. In a nutshell, the variety of devices accessing the web and the complexity of access technology has made designing a one size fits all web pages almost impossible now. <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">** How Instructional Designers may address Accessibility? ** <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">** The intermediate designers **

<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Perhaps instructional designers should first be familiar with accessibility issues and how they may be resolved. For a start, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) and Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM) would be useful sources to understand some guidelines to develop web content that are accessible. The WAI is the most prominent player in addressing accessibility issues for both users who are able and disabled, while WebAIM is more targeted for the disabled. Table 1 provides a glimpse of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, one of the sub-initiatives under WAI that provides guidance to making web pages more accessible. <span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Table 1 <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">// Overview of WCAG 2.0 //



<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Source: NYS Forum IT Accessibility Work Group Web 2.0 and Accessibility 1/9/2010. pp 9 <span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> For those who are more technically savvy to explore how accessibility will evolve in the web, it is important to know that the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) is the latest development under the WAI. Its goal is to enable assistive technology to better represent user interface and addresses input and navigation challenges. Although the standards are still being drafted, they are already making way into several browsers and web applications. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">** The advance designers ** <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> The more advance designers may find the most effective approach to evaluate the accessibility of the web content through software and formative evaluations as part of their instructional development process. At present, there are various freeware or proprietary software that assesses the accessibility of web content according to specifications set out by the WAI. However, these applications are still limited in their ability to identify the exact source of the accessibility problem and are often criticized for providing too much unnecessary information about the error or none at all (Gibson, 2007). Newer tools would be needed to achieve pin-point accuracy in this regard. Nonetheless, some possible tools (see Table 2) that evaluate popular web content are compiled in the table below for designers who are keen to initiate some form of accessibility evaluation on their instructions. A complete list of software that assesses accessibility may be obtained from []. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Since every aspect of accessibility may not be evaluated by software alone, a comprehensive user testing that involves evaluating visual appearance and interfaces among different browsers or devices may still be required to augment software results.
 * <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Table 2 ||
 * //<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Web 2.0 Accessibility Checker Software // ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">**S/N** || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">**Content Type**  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">**Software**  || <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Source**  ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">1 || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Web Pages  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">WAVE  || <span style="color: #4e7dbf; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[]  ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">2 || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">PDF Document  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC)  || <span style="color: #4e7dbf; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[]  ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">3 || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Photo  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Vischeck  || <span style="color: #4e7dbf; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[]  ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">4 || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">MS Word  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Word 2010 Accessibility Checker  || <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Function available in application  ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Java GUI  || <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Rule-based Accessibility Validation Environment (RAVEN)  || <span style="color: #4e7dbf; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[]  ||

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">In essence, web accessibility should be seen as a continual process that should be carried out as often as possible during the development phase of instructional design. Until technology is available to perform such evaluation automatically, ensuring accessibility will continue to be a laborious task for instructional designers.

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">** The expert designers **

<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> Instructional designers exploring the web to deliver their instructions will always be bounded by the technology available to do so. For those who have very specific requirements that most technology is not able to offer, it is suggested that these designers work in partnership with developers or legislators that promote accessibility (Michael, 2005). Some possible communities are the Protocol and Format Working Group (PFWG) under the WAI or IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center. **<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">What Lies Ahead ** <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">The Web will continue to present itself as a vibrant place for people to interact, network and collaborate. Fueled by the extensive use of media, ease of accessibility through portable devices and rich interactive interfaces, the web is likely to only become more relied as the preferred medium for instructional designers to deliver instructions moving forward. However, conforming to accessibility standards is not easy and it is laborious to meet W3C or WebAIM standards. And as more user-generated content is being introduced to learning methodologies, ensuring content compliance to any accessibility standards will just get more difficult (Moss, 2006). To this end, instructional designers should not be disheartened by the complexity to address accessibility. Instead, they should start or continue to pay close attention to design, develop and implement instructions that are accessible for both the able and disabled. This is especially since there are greater benefits and impetus to address accessibility now. Depending on the level of expertise, instructional designers could select one of the suggested strategies to enhance the accessibility of their instructions in their next project.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">References **

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[1] Brewer, J. (2005). How People with Disabilities Use the Web. Retrieved from [] <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[2] Everett, C. (2006). Web 2.0: A step backwards for accessibility? Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[3] Gibson, B. (2007). Enabling an Accessible Web 2.0. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[4] Madden, C. (2008). Web 2.0 Accessibility and Disability. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[5] Michael, C. (2005). Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies: Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[6] Moss, T. (2006) Web Accessibility Meets Web 2.0: What Future Ahead? Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">[7] Kern, W. (2008). Web 2.0 – End Of Accessibility? - Analysis Of Most Common Problems With Web 2.0 Based Applications Regarding Web Accessibility. International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol 2008:2. pp132 - 133. Retrieved from []