Changes

'''Finalized'''[http://sweerdenburgmatrix.senecac.escapeningon.comca/~sweerdenburg/Storage/Research%20Notes%20-%20BTH740%20-%20Steven%20Weerdenburg.pdf PDF (includes hand-written)]

Sydik - Design Accessible Web Sites - Get into overview of evolution of web technologies. HTML 4, HTML5, CSS, JavaScript. Include user-supplied content (273-296wikis)and the like (SCANNED IMAGES HEREFlickr, social media).

Horton - Access by DesignConcern about web site accessibility has been growing steadily since the mid 90s (SCANNED IMAGES HEREKane, pg 2).

4 Criteria (Reid-Web Accessibility Standard for Evolving Web WCAG 1 was for static web sites110, now dynamic sites are much more common. Much more involving technologies. WCAG 1 was HTML specific though WCAG 2 is technology independent. Subjective definitions of WCAG 1 posed issues for testability. 4 CriteriaSydik):

Descriptive guidelines, not prescriptiveTestable by humans or machines 3 levels: A, AA, AAA based on possibility, applicability, reasonability, limitations imposed and existence of workarounds. Levels build on each other (A must be met to be AA, AA must be met to be AAA). ALL OF ABOVE ALSO COVERED BY SYDIK Responsibility is blurred 65 total checkpoints (user agents can supply content to wikis, blogs, etc.Reid pg 110). "Programmatically determined" is language to define when information must be interoperable with assistive technology or other user agent.

Despite a large amount of work into legislation, authoring tools, assistive technology development and best practice identification. Large lack of awareness despite efforts of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI developed Web master must allow for user-submitted content to confirm to Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG guidelines ) and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (text alternatives for user-submitted pictures, etcATAG). This may not be completely acceptable (such as emailsSloan, pg 122), "Partial Conformance" may be granted.

Technology that Standard-adherence is used must enable conformance, though conformance is not stated with regards important to if technology is inaccessible. "Accessibility-supported" is when accessibility features of a technology are supported screen readers as pointed out by a user agent (browser, screen readerHorton, etc.). Accessible supported web technologies are context dependent (intranet is less strict than internet). Content language is also importantReid.

As web evolves, more and more difficult Standard adoption is similar to find alternative versions with comparable functionality. May also discourage usage industrial revolution standardization of newer technologies for conformance sake. "Graceful degradation" allows for integration of new technologies with fallback nail/screw sizes, though difficulty is analogous to old having living-room plays, gym recitals, small theatre productions and grand operas all appear one after another on same stage (HTML5 video -> FlashKreps, pg 2). Distinction between Mentions though that the artisans who yielded control in Industrial gave up easier than Microsoft has (Kreps, pg 3), and that W3C publishes "usedrecommendations" and rather than "relied uponstandards", page must be usable on platform where technology is not reliable.

Permits multiple forms (video, video WCAG took nearly 8 years to come out • Initial Draft Jan 25 2001 - http:/w sign language, video /w hard captions)www. Captions may be spoken text (subtitles), descriptive audio (captions) or fullw3.org/TR/2001/WD-text descriptive content (A, AA, AAA respectively)WCAG20-20010125/ • Final Draft Dec 12 2008 - http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

CAPTCHA alternatives (audioReid, videopg 113) to traditional image. Scripting also changes the nature of a web page, makes it difficult for screen readers to differentiate a div with a bunch of links from a div as an interactive menu. Not so much an issue if keyboard accessible, but still no way to notify screen readers when element has focus or has changed as result of scripting. Accessible Rich Internet Application (ARIA)

Large number of policies "Indeed their victory over Microsoft and legislation world wide Netscape in Canadathe Browser Wars of the mid-late 1990s was something achieved rather through the vigorous lobbying of external organisations such as the Web Standards Project, Japan(WaSP 1998) formed to enable web developers to avoid the increasingly necessary expense of creating multiple versions of their websites individually tailored to increasingly different browsers." (Kreps, US3).Almost presents same issue again that occurred in mid 90s which caused W3C to define standards/recommendations in place of IE and Netscape, UKexcept coding for various implementations of client technologies (goes back to User Agent Accessibility Guidelines). WHAT GOOD IS TECHNOLOGY IF CAN'T RELY ON IT'S USAGE? WHY PUT EFFORT INTO DEVELOPMENT? Development of a product is further refined as recommendations from the W3C or other bodies are adopted into legislation by state bodies. "WCAG has also been used as a model for accessibility legislation, EU, UN such as in the Section 508 guidelines for US government web sites [34]." (Kane, Australia, etc.149)

SloanNumerous State bodies have passed binding legislation with regards to WCAG (Sydik, 292-Contextual Web Accessibility297)State BodyLegislationScopeInformationAustraliaDisability Discrimintation ActPublic/Private Sectorhttp://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/dda_guide.htmCanadaCanadian Human Rights Act, Ontario Human Rights Code.

*Published in 2006, mostly applicable All sites with WCAG 2 AAAccepted to WCAG 1be Private (Human Rights)

Public (pg 122WCAG) Despite a large amount of work into legislation, authoring tools, assistive technology development and best practice identificationhttp://www. Large lack of awareness despite efforts of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)tbs-sct. WAI developed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)gc.ca/clf2-nsi2/

http://www.zvulony.com/accessibility.htmlEUeInclusionNone (pg 123many member states have legislation for public/private sector) Sometimes a web site may be structured to cater to a specific audience http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusionJapanJapan Industrial Standard (learningJIS) X 8341-disabled children) but be difficult for another (normal3Non-functioning adult)legal, considered best practicehttp://www.mitsue.co.jp/english/column/backnum/20040625.htmlUKDisability Discrimination Act

Special Educational Needs and Disability ActPublic/Private  Educationhttp://www.drc-gb.org/PDF/CoP_Access.pdf (125Kane, 149) Brings mention UNConvention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities100 member nationshttp://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ http://www.nomensa.com/resources/research/united-nations-global-audit-of Podcasts-accessibility.htmlUSSection 508Publichttp://www.section508.gov/ Further Law Info can be found at WebAIM World Laws (http://www.webaim.org/articles/laws/world/) BUT HOW DOES ALL OF THIS AFFECT ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY AND WEB SITES? Dexter Hypertext Model Overview (Dodd, Powerpointspg 4)Document may be atom (single page) of Composite component.Anchor - Link between documents. Can be scriptable, points out mediumdeterminable at run time (issue for screen readers?) The Dexter Model is formally expressed as three distinct layers as shown in Figure 2 below; the relevant items from Figure 2 are listed for each layer. (Dodd, pg 5)   Figure 2 – The three layer Dexter Model  "Each Component within the Dexter Model is associated with a Presentation Specification. The Presentation Specification describes how an individual component should be rendered to the user." (Dodd, pg 5) Design-wise this is accomplished through CSS, but User Agent-dependent issueswise this means updating CSS interpretations within the browser and releasing new browser versions. This is reliant on standards. Notes transcripts of podcasts not normally provided Many automated tools exist to test, thus breaking though false positives are potential. WebXACT (aka Bobby) and Cynthia Says are two common WCAG1.0 testers. All FAE tests modification of this to both WCAG and Section 508 (US only) legislations. Alt Text on images is based commonly flagged, but is alt text significant on educational0centric standpointspace-holding images? WebInSight tries to mitigate this error. (Kane, what about other 151). Of the 778 sites? tested by Kreps, a vast majority had many many issues. Were outright invalid or were not up to standard (Kreps, 6). REFERENCES TO UNIVERSITY WEB SITE STUDIES (Kane , 149).<25% of university home pages were passed by Bobby (Kane from Rowland, 149)77% of home pages or pages linked from were failed by Bobby from to p24 ranked info science universities in US (Kane from Schmetzke, 149).Automated tools to test top 50 US schools, 15% failed in at least accessibility or usability tests, 35/50 failed WCAG Priority 1 (Kane from Zaphiris and Ellis, 149) Kane conducted self study on Times Top 100 Universities using multi-method technique (Bobby and Cynthia scores combined, FAE kept separate). Only 2 were 100% WCAG 1 compliant (Bobby and Cynthia), while "effectiveness of Among those countries with 5 or more ranked universities, universities in Australia contain the fewest average accessibility solution depends on errors, followed by the United Kingdom, the context of use United of States, the PresentationNetherlands and France (tie), and Switzerland."(Kane, 152). Situation-dependentResults found to be statistically significantly.Table on 152 shows numbers, DO THESE COINCIDE WITH SCOPE OF LEGISLATION (PUBLIC/PRIVATE VS. PRIVATE ONLY)? FOR THOSE THAT DO, DOES RATE OF ADHERENCE COINCIDE WITH DURATION OF TIME SINCE LEGISLATION ENACTED (LESS INFRACTIONS FOR LONGER TIME ENACTED)?

Aside from markup itself, also worth noting is the additional implementation time of drafting and updating accessibility policies. Kane found less than half (12646/100) Personal Needs Application profiles identifying needs are being developed sites had accessibility policies somewhere on the site, with a fifth (IEEE Learning Objects Metadata21/100) linked from the home page. More overhead in adherence than simply markup, LOMbut promotes best practice: "Web sites that featured accessibility policies had statistically fewer accessibility violations than sites that did not have policies (p < .01) Sites without policies averaged 5.36 P1-P3 violations, while sites with policies averaged 3.98 P1-3 violations. Identifies many other learning standards such as ISO SC36" (Kane, IEEE RAMLET154)

(127) Context"The issue of web accessibility has received a fair amount of attention in English-dependent alternativesspeaking countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, focus on user-centric design and satisfying their needsAustralia. "there is no single universal solutionThese sites tend to have a somewhat higher level of accessibility. Instead However, the universities developer can select relevant guidelines in order to implement a solution which some non-English-speaking countries have significantly less accessible web pages. It is usable to not clear from the target audience, and taking into account any access requirements present research what factors may cause this discrepancy in web site accessibility. Web developers will then be expected to make use of It seems that legislation may have a limited positive effect on accessibility. For example, web sites range of guidelines covering best practices in areas of the United accessibilityKingdom, usability and where university web interoperability. So for example a simple Web site may make use accessibility is regulated, have some of the highest levels of well-established guidelines such as WCAG and Nielsen’s usability heuristics to develop a simple solutionaccessibility." THIS PRESUMES IMPLEMENTATION KNOWLEDGE (UAAGKane, 154), POTENTIAL EXCLUSION OF CASUAL USERS, THOUGH BETTER FOR MAJORITY OF AUDIENCE

Kreps Dodd identifies that other usability concerns crop up as a result of the very standard for web pages (HTML, based off Dexter Model). "As a simple example, the ordering of content in a list may need to vary between visual and audio design spaces: in text-to- How speech environments, the Web Continues most important menu options may need to Fail People with Disabilitiesbe listed first, but in a visual environment the menu may be required to be grouped more logically." (Dodd, page 8)This is a standard that is so long in evolution and entrenchment is so high that it is unlikely to change. "HTML version 5 [8] is now out for discussion and, “intends to replace HTML 4, XHTML 1.x, and DOM2 HTML specifications”" (Dodd from W3C, pg 10)Note that attributes and events can be used to provide synchronization (video.timeupdate event), but these require manual checking of the time every millisecond and is "forced synchronization".

Standard-Even with standard adherence , accessibility is important to screen readers as pointed out by Horton, Reidnot guaranteed. This is similar to industrial revolution standardization of nail/screw sizes, though difficulty is analogous to having livingScreenreaders evaluate DOM at load-room plays, gym recitals, small theatre productions time and grand operas all appear one after another can not reevaluate when changed at run-time through on same stage (pg 2)-page scripts. Mentions though that "Screen reading application Jaws for Windows [5] and VoiceOver [7], both fail to handle the artisans who yielded control in Industrial gave up easier than Microsoft has dynamic page updates correctly on what is otherwise a trivial web page." (Dodd, pg 39), and that W3C publishes "reccommendations" rather than "standards".

Cites browser usage statistics with regards to CONCLUSIONToo long an standardization time means continual adjusting or standards compliance and implementations there of (pg 4)ARIA, but NEEDS UP TO DATE INFO, DATED 2008 (All below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers) • NetApplication (40,000 sites, unique visitorsFirefox kept tweaking as standards) http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browseror non-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 • W3Counter implementation at all (last 15,000 nonunique viewsIE held off on implementation) http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php • StatCounter (3Too short can lead to short-sightedness,000,000 sites, #hits inflexibility and necessity to "go back to the drawing board" (not unique)) http://gs.statcounter.com/ ○ Can drill by region/country. Huge differences between US WCAG 1 was narrow focused and EU • W3Schools Counter http://wwwtech specific.w3schoolsImplemented in 1999, version 2.com/browsers/browsers_stats0 was being drafted 2 years after already).asp • StatOwl Why would a company invest lots of resources in implementing WCAG 1 compliance a year after if WCAG 2 is already in the works (USA onlysimilar to IE not adopting ARIA, universities not conforming to WCAG "recommendations") http://www.statowl.com/web_browser_market_share.php • Wikimedia visitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Wikimedia_.28April_2009_to_present.29