In Consideration of Accessibility?

In a previous post I described [actually the W3C described it] internationalization, localization and accessibility as it applies to Internet content.  Design, licensing and redistribution considerations are important in the creation of OER to maximize the audience and to minimize issues related to reuse.  Accessibility, however, does bring in another layer of complexity. A significant question is what if any laws exist in Canada that govern accessibility and Internet publishing and in general OER distribution.

The short answer is no.  According to CIPPIC:

“Currently, there are no laws in Canada that explicitly require websites to comply with any set of standards that would make them accessible. Further, there are no license requirements for Websites, Online Service Providers (OSP) or even Internet Service Providers (ISP). However, some statutes impose obligations on the Federal government, federally regulated bodies and provincially regulated bodies, to make their respective websites accessible to people with disabilities.”

The latter part of the statement refers to the Federal Government “Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0” legislation [now enhanced with the Standard on Web Accessibility and new Standard on Web Usability.  The legislation, however,  does not extend to other organizations or individuals.  Some provincial legislation does exist but these are also generally directed at government organizations and services.

In the end what individuals or specific organizations can turn to for support with accessibility issues is the Canadians Human Rights Act.  But even here the act is limited in scope and again according to CIPPIC :

“The Act covers departments and agents of the federal government as well as crown corporations. The Act also covers federally regulated organizations, including chartered banks, airlines, television and radio broadcast stations, interprovincial communications and telephone companies, first nations and other federally industries like mining. Thus, the Act can only be applied to the websites of organizations that come within the categories above.”

The basic interpretation then applies…if a service or product is provided for sale then the laws have to be followed.  The question is whether or not what you produce [a website for example] falls within this category.  An informational site intended to be used as a resource by teachers may not.  This may absolve you of any responsibility to make your site accessible from a legal standpoint but what moral obligation do we have.

In general terms then individuals and organizations like schools or school divisions in Canada are left to themselves to decide to incorporate accessibility in design and distribution.  It can make good business and operational sense to consider accessibility but it is not required.  From a philosophical point of view educational institutions would seem to have a greater burden to make content accessible but in practice this is not as easy as it seems.  As Jonathan Bauer states in his posting [Continuous Learning] on the same topic and with respect to the tools suggested [from the US Section 508 website] that can be used to improve accessibility:

“My reaction after spending time reviewing some of the tools available to promote accessibility via Section 508 (see: tools and resources). My initial skim through some of these tools reveals that they will require a higher technical ability from the user.”

Organizations and individuals are left then to either pay a third-party that has the technical expertise and know-how to create your internet presence or to develop the expertise required.  I know from first hand experience that this does not often happen in K12 school divisions.  Even if they purchase service from a third party.

So left to our individual or collective responsibility who do we turn to?  Once again the W3C comes up big.  Make a decision as to what degree you will make the content accessible [let your conscience be your guide] and follow the guidelines set out by the W3C as much as possible.

Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 98827, OER and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to In Consideration of Accessibility?

  1. Jonathan says:

    Hi Stu,

    It seems that this does indeed come down to a “moral” decision as outside of the federal and provincial government and the other organizational types you listed, users do not have to make their content accessible to all.

    Perhaps, if viewers put more pressure on the creator, ensuring that he or she made certain of the accessibility for all users, then we would see more progress. This could be done via reviews of the Open Education Resource by the viewers (and online community). For example, the more accessible the resource was the more credibility it would gain.

    Another option for change: is if members of the community championed this cause and edited the work of others, to make it more accessible. More training is needed in order to afford all users the technical skills required to do this. I am certain that society would not be able to rely on others but rather should empower each content creator with the skills to make his or her content accessible to all.

    In our next discussion, our group might be able to determine useful learning resources for this purpose. Thanks for sharing your findings. I enjoyed reading your post.

    Jonathan

  2. damoclarky says:

    I must admit that I have rarely considered accessibility in the work that I have published online in the past. I had not heard of a screen-reader until I met a blind person who was using it some years ago. Quite a clever piece of technology I thought at the time, but thwarted to a certain extent without the appropriate guidelines with meta-data to make the screen-reader much more effective. There is a fellow whom I know of who is bound to a wheel-chair, and yet from what I understand, his work is exemplary amongst his peers. It is easy to overlook accessibility when publishing to a deadline and it is a shame when it may exclude minority groups on the basis of disability.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s