Slides for a talk on "Accessibility is Primarily About People and Processes, Not Digital Resources!" given as a pre-recorded slidecast (with audio) by Brian Kelly, Cetis at the OZeWAI 2013 conference held at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia on Friday 29 November 2013. For further information see http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/

1. Accessibility is Primarily About People
and Processes, Not Digital Resources!
Brian Kelly
Contact Details
Innovation Advocate
Cetis
University of Bolton
Bolton, UK
Email: ukwebfocus@gmail.com
Twitter: @briankelly
Cetis Web site: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/
Slides and further information available at
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/
1

2. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are given to the co-authors of the
holistic accessibility series of peer-reviewed papers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elaine Swift (2004)
Lawrie Phipps (2004, 2005, 2006)
David Sloan (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
Helen Petrie (2005, 2006, 2007)
Fraser Hamilton (2005, 2006)
Caro Howell (2005)
Andy Heath (2006)
Acknowledgements are also given to
Stephen Brown (2007, 2009)
Jonathan Hassell and Dominik Lukeš,
Jane Seale (2007, 2009)
co-authors of a recent Ariadne article:
Patrick Lauke (2007, 2009)
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue71/kelly-et-al
Simon Ball (2007, 2009)
Liddy Nevile (2008, 2009)
EA Draffan (2008)
Sotiris Fanou (2008, 2009)
Stuart Smith (2009)
Ruth Ellison (2009)
Lisa Herrod (2009)
All papers are available from Opus the
Sarah Lewthwaite (2010, 2012)
University of Bath institutional repository:
Martyn Cooper (2012)
http://opus.bath.ac.uk/view/person_id/588.html
2

3. Introduction
Abstract
Standardisation work for web accessibility has focused
primarily on conformance of digital resources with a series of
checkpoints. But as Cooper et al have argued "web
accessibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a digital
resource but is determined by complex political, social and
other contextual factors, as well as technical aspects which
are the focus of WAI standardisation activities. It can
therefore be inappropriate to develop legislation or focus on
metrics only associated with properties of the resource."
This talk reviews the approaches which have been
developed by accessibility researchers and practitioners in
the UK since 2005 and complementary standardisation work
which resulted in the BS 8878 Code of Practice for Web
Accessibility.
3

4. History
My Previous Work
Timeline of my involvement in Web accessibility work
http://www.dipity.com/briankelly/Web_Accessibility_Timeline_For_Brian_Kelly/
Promoting WAI to UK Universities
Realisation of flaws in
WAI’s model
Articulating
New
flaws
approaches
4

5. History
History
Developing and refining alternative approaches
Critique of WCAG metrics
In Jan 2009 work presented at OZeWAI and subsequent discussions led to
new paper with Australian insights provided by Lisa Herrod and Ruth Ellison.
5

6. 6
OZeWAI

7. OZeWAI
What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me?
"What can be done to help them get
all Victoria Council websites to be AA
conformant?"
"accessibility support and features of
present-generation mobile devices"
"access Features for schema.org / ISO
24751"
"Accessible modern video for all"
“The main issues in getting government
to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must
be for the industry who are helping
government over the next 12 months to
the end of the NTS."
"HTML 5 accessibility overview"
"An update on W3C/WAI activities and
outputs "
7

8. OZeWAI
What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Looking at OZeWAI 2013 programme what strikes me?
"What can be done to help them get
all Victoria Council websites to be AA
conformant?"
"accessibility support and features of
present-generation mobile devices"
"access Features for schema.org / ISO
24751"
"Accessible modern video for all"
“The main issues in getting government
to be WCAG 2.0 and what the focus must
be for the industry who are helping
government over the next 12 months to
the end of the NTS."
"HTML 5 accessibility overview"
"An update on W3C/WAI activities and
outputs "
What have they in common? Accessibility is about digital content & tools:
ensuring that Web content conforms with WCAG guidelines; ensuring that
Web developers and content authors are aware of and able to exploit
accessibility features in languages (HTML5) and tools (e.g. Drupal) and
other technical developments (e.g schema.org and RDF application profiles).
8

9. OZeWAI
What Have I Missed at OZeWAI 2013?
Other OZeWAI 2013 sessions cover broader issues:
SOCITM surveys cover wider issues:
usability/functionality/accessibility
"As web accessibility professionals,
we should be primarily concerned
with serving the needs of web users,
not developers"
“Do we need a different view point if we
are ever going to be able to help
developers understand how to take the
first crucial steps in the right direction?"
9

10. OZeWAI
What’s Missing?
Some thoughts on issues which appear to be
missing from the OZeWAI 2013 conference
The ‘post-digital’ environment e.g.
blended accessibility for blended
learning
Standards beyond resources /
describing resources
Critiques and concerns beyond the
technical / usability camps: e.g. disability
theorists and sociologist perspectives on
disability considerations
To be discussed after looking a historical perspective
on Web accessibility activities
10

11. A Controversial View?
This paper argues that
web accessibility is not
an intrinsic
characteristic of a digital
resource but is
determined by complex
political, social and
other contextual factors,
as well as technical
aspects which are the
focus of WAI
standardisation
activities. It can
therefore be
inappropriate to develop
legislation or focus on
metrics only associated
with properties of the
resource.
Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S., 2012. A Challenge to Web Accessibility
Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and Processes First.
In: W4A 2012: 9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility.
11

12. Looking Back
Is Accessibility Really Complex?
Is web accessibility really
“determined by complex
political, social and other
contextual factors”?
Surely it’s about:
• A simple set of rules to
be applied to web
resources
• Legislation which
mandates organisations
to use the rule
• Education on how to
implement the rules
12

13. Looking Back
Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which
requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for
a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical
disabilities (which could include an overweight student or
a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A
blinkered approach would be to seek to make the
mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by
cancelling the field trip for everybody.
Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and
Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
13

14. Looking Back
Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which
requires climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for
a student in a wheelchair or with similar physical
disabilities (which could include an overweight student or
a heavy smoker who finds physical exertions difficult). A
blinkered approach would be to seek to make the
mountain accessible [to all] by building a ramp or by
cancelling the field trip for everybody.
Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and
Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
14

15. Looking Back
Learning Accessibility Before the Web
“consider a field trip for a geography student, which requires
climbing a mountain or other terrain unsuited for a student in a
wheelchair or with similar physical disabilities (which could
include an overweight student or a heavy smoker who finds
physical exertions difficult). A blinkered approach would be to
seek to make the mountain accessible [to all] by building a
ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody. However
using our model the teacher would identify the learning
experiences (perhaps selection of minerals in their natural
environment and working in a team) and seek equivalent
learning experiences (perhaps providing the student with
3G phone technologies, videos, for use in selecting the
mineral, followed by team-building activities back at the
base camp).”
Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility, Kelly, B., Phipps, L. and
Swift, E. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
15

16. Looking Back
From Web to Blended Accessibility
WAI model is based solely on
characteristics of Web resource and
tools to create and view resources.
Forcing Standardization or Accommodating
Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in
the Real World, Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L.,
Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. Proceedings of the 2005
International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web
Accessibility (W4A), May 2005.
Holistic
model
focuses on
accessibility
of learner’s
needs.
The learner’s
needs can be
addressed by a
variety of
solutions: Web,
other IT and
real world.
16

17. The Post-Digital World
What Will The Post-digital Era Mean For Brands?
Amy Edel-Vaughn , Interbrand blog, 7 August, 2012
In the 1990s we were
fascinated by technologies
such as the Web
Today and near future:
• Technologies pervasive
yet invisible
• What are the implications
for Web practices in a
post-digital age?
Is sending and reading a tweet a Web action, covered
by Web practices such as WCAG?
What about sending a text message?
Ideas based on Postdigital: Escaping the Kingdom of the New?,
Dave White, TALL blog, 19 June 2009,
17

18. Looking Back
WCAG 2.0’s Four Principles
WCAG 2.0 introduced four key principles.
Content must be:
1. Perceivable
2. Operable
3. Understandable - Information and the operation
of user interface must be understandable
4. Robust
18

19. Looking Back
Understanding “Understanding”
What does “understanding” mean for a surrealist
painting?
See Accessibility 2.0: Next
Steps For Web Accessibility,
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown,
S., Seale, J., Smith, S.,
Lauke, P. and Ball, S.
Journal of Access Services,
Vol. 6 Issue 1 & 2, 2009,
pp. 265-294.
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)

20. Looking Back
Understanding “Understanding”
What does “understanding” mean for learning?
“Learning is achieved when the
learner is actively engaged in
the creation of knowledge
rather than the passive recipient
of information” Anon.
“Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the
general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct
knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared
artifacts with shared meanings” Wikipedia
20

21. Accessibility For Me!
“Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which
requires a high-spec PC. It is not
universally accessible. In a video
entitled Wheeling In Second
Life, Judith, who has cerebral
palsy, describes the pleasure she
gains from her use of Second
Life and the facility it provides
her to meet others. Public sector
organisations that are bound too
narrowly by technical or even
contextual rules and legislation,
might feel compelled to shy
away from making use of Second
Life. In doing so, they might
deny users such as Judith the
special benefits in terms of
engagement that it offers her”
From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S.,
Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, 2009
21

22. Accessibility For Me!
“Second Life is a graphicallyoriented environment which
requires a high-spec PC. It is not
universally accessible. In a video
entitled Wheeling In Second
Life, Judith, who has cerebral
palsy, describes the pleasure she
gains from her use of Second
Life and the facility it provides
her to meet others. Public
sector organisations that are
bound too narrowly by
technical or even contextual
rules and legislation, might feel
compelled to shy away from
making use of Second Life. In
doing so, they might deny users
such as Judith the special
benefits in terms of
engagement that it offers her”
22

23. Looking Back
Need For A Wide Range of Stakeholders
WAI model does not
address:
• Ways of identifying and
engaging with range of
stakeholders
• Processes needed to
develop sustainable
accessibility
It be useful if there were
standards to address
stakeholder engagement
in Web development
Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes,
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H., Lauke, P. and Ball, S. WWW 2007 Banff, Canada.
23

24. What Next?
What Is To Be Done?
Complexity should not mean inaction. Something needs
to be done! But what?
Doing the Right Thing?
“Under the Australian Disabilities Act (1992) [43], Australian
Government services must not discriminate against people with
disabilities.”
Implementing Legal Requirements in a Flawed Way?
“The Australian Government Information Management Office states
that compliance to WCAG 1.0 is mandatory for all Government
departments and agencies [44].”
From Web Accessibility to Web Adaptability, Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Sloan, D., Fanou, S.,
Ellison, R. and Herrod, L., Disability and Rehability: Assistive Technology, Volume 4, Issue 4,
July 2009, pp. 212-226. DOI: 10.1080/17483100902903408
24

25. What Next?
Aversive Disablism
“'Aversive disablists recognise disablism is bad but do not
recognize that they themselves are prejudiced' [6]. Where
aversive racists are not anti-black, but pro-white [7],
aversive disablists may not be anti-disabled, but rather
pro-non-disabled. This disablism, is often unintentional”
Who may be aversive disablists?
• Legislators, who develop legislation which has
unforeseen effects for Judith?
• Institutional policy makers and Web managers who
implement such legislation?
Developing Countries; Developing Experiences: Approaches to Accessibility for the Real
World, Kelly, B., Lewthwaite, S. and Sloan, D., W4A 2010, April 26-27, 2010.
ISBN: 978-1-4503-0045-2 DOI: 10.1145/1805986.1805992
25

26. Disability, Web Standards, and the
Majority World
“Web standards offer a powerful tool for achieving
global web accessibility. However, the success of such
standards may be limited while standards fail to
account for disability as a socio-cultural product
dependent on any given context.”
From Chapter 9, Disability, Web Standards, and the
Majority World by Sarah Lewthwaite and Henny Swan.
In Rhetorical Accessability: At the Intersection of
Technical Communication and Disability Studies,
ISBN: 978-0-89503-789-3, August 2013.
26

27. Limitations of Our Work
Research work on
holistic approaches to
Web accessibility:
• Well known across
research
community
• Widely cited
• Awarded prize at
W4A 2010
But:
• Little impact on
legislators and
policy makers
• Left unresolved
“what should I do?”
27

28. Enter BS 8878
BS 8878:
• Developed in UK in parallel with our
holistic accessibility work
• UK standardisation work aligned with ideas
described in “Accessibility 2.0: People,
Policies and Processes”, W4A 2007
• Work led by Jonathan Hassell,
Hassell Inclusion and former
Head of Usability & Accessibility,
BBC Future Media
• Costs £100
• See Getting Started Guide
and Hassell Inclusion
28

29. BS 8878’s 16 Stages
BS 8878 describes 16 steps which cover 4 stages.
See BS 8878 in 88 Seconds video
29

30. BS 8878
BS 8878’s 16 Steps
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Define the purpose of the web product
Define the target audiences for the web product
Analyse the needs of the target audiences for the web product
Note any platform or technology preferences and restrictions of the web product's
target audiences
Step 5: Define the relationship the product will have with its target audiences
Step 6: Define the user goals and tasks the web product needs to provide
Step 7:
Step 8:
Step 9:
Step 10:
Consider the degree of user-experience the web product will aim to provide
Consider inclusive design and user-personalized approaches to accessibility
Choose the delivery platforms to support
Choose the target browsers, operating systems and assistive technologies to
support
Step 11: Choose whether to create or procure the web product in-house or contract out
externally
Step 12: Define the web technologies to be used in the web product
Step 13: Use web guidelines to direct accessible web production
Step 14: Assure the web product's accessibility through production
Step 15: Communicate the web product's accessibility decisions at launch
Step 16: Plan to assure accessibility in all post-launch updates to the product
See A Challenge to Web Accessibility Metrics and Guidelines: Putting People and
Processes First, Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B. and Lewthwaite, S. W4A 2012.
30

31. BS 8878
About BS 8878
BS 8878 Web Accessibility Code of Practice is a process-oriented
standard created in the UK to allow organisations to:
1. Understand why digital inclusion and accessibility makes good
business sense
2. Embed inclusion responsibility strategically across key job-roles,
and into key policies
3. Follow a user-centred production process which identifies the key
decisions which affect inclusion and which are taken in a Web
product’s lifecycle
4. Adopt an informed way of making these decisions
5. Adopt a way of documenting these decisions to provide a log for
assessing accessibility risk & proving conformance with BS 8878
6. Synchronise these activities with similar processes for the
inclusive design of non-digital products
"Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013,
Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 31

32. BS 8878
BS 8878 and Other Standards
BS 8878 adds a framework to technical accessibility guidelines
like WCAG 2.0 to ensure all aspects of an organisation’s
activities which impact inclusion are covered. These include:
• Procurement and selection of production tools and
CMSs
• Outsourcing production to third-parties
• Project management of inclusive production
• Assessment of accessibility risk and impact on budgets
• Selection of the more effective testing methodologies to
assure accessibility alongside usability
• Governance of inclusion across a programme of Web
production projects
"Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually Sensitive“, July 2013,
Ariadne (71), Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan, Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite 32

33. BS 8878
In Brief
At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all
accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their product,
its specific audiences, and a clear, researched understanding
of the contexts in which those audiences will use the product.
In the light of this research, organisations can then make highlevel decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they wish
the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the
accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the
relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of
making it accessible to that degree.
From there organisations are advised on the relative costbenefits of different testing methodologies for them to use
across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that
they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were
aiming for.
"Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually
Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71
33

34. BS 8878
In Brief
At its heart, BS 8878 encourages organisations to make all
accessibility decisions based on the purpose of their
product, its specific audiences, and a clear, researched
understanding of the contexts in which those audiences will
use the product.
In the light of this research, organisations can then make highlevel decisions on the overall degree of accessibility they
wish the product to have, and more detailed decisions on the
accessibility of user journeys to each of its goals based on the
relative importance of the goals and the cost-benefits of
making it accessible to that degree.
From there organisations are advised on the relative costbenefits of different testing methodologies for them to use
across the lifetime of the product to assure themselves that
they have achieved the degree of accessibility they were
aiming for.
34

35. BS 8878
What Next?
“Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting
accessibility successfully within a large organisational
structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging
focus on defining, implementing and documenting the
process of creating accessible Web content, process
standards such as BS8878 need to become more visible
and given greater support at a global level.
Complementing this, we need greater sharing of success
stories as narratives of problems to be addressed,
constraints within which work had to take place, what was
done and the measurable evidence of impact in terms of
positive experiences of disabled people - and of other
users.”
From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually
Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan,
Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite
35

36. BS 8878
What Next?
“Kline describes the complexity of the task of promoting
accessibility successfully within a large organisational
structure. To recognise this complexity, while encouraging
focus on defining, implementing and documenting the
process of creating accessible Web content, process
standards such as BS8878 need to become more
visible and given greater support at a global level.
Complementing this, we need greater sharing of
success stories as narratives of problems to be
addressed, constraints within which work had to take
place, what was done and the measurable evidence of
impact in terms of positive experiences of disabled people
- and of other users.”
From "Bring Your Own Policy: Why Accessibility Standards Need to Be Contextually
Sensitive“, July 2013, Ariadne Issue 71, Brian Kelly, Jonathan Hassell, David Sloan,
Dominik Lukeš, E.A. Draffan and Sarah Lewthwaite
36

37. What Next?
But What Can I Do Next?
You can:
• Take an area which poses difficulties in ensuring WCAG
compliance e.g.
• Your institutional repository with author-deposited
PDFs but no ALT text for images in MS Word
master
• Your VLE, with the limitations provided by the
vendor
• Your plans to digitise lectures, but no funding for
captioning
• Your MOOC plans and the accompanying
uncaptioned video resources
• ….
• Use BS 8878 16 stages to document your plans,
stake-holders, user engagement, constraints,
policy decisions and sustainability plans
37

38. What Next?
Conclusions
To conclude:
• There is a need to think beyond the digital
resource and the digital tools
• You should engage with a wide range of
stakeholders in enhancing accessibility
• You should also consider alternative perspectives
of 'accessibility' and disability
• It’s OK to reject 'universal accessibility' and focus
on 'accessibility for these users in these
circumstances'
• WCAG is still relevant, but shouldn't dominate
• BS 8878 provides a standard for further work
• There’s a need to share experiences in use of BS
8878, especially if it’s to develop beyond the UK
38

39. Any Questions?
Note an accompanying blog post is available at
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2013/11/29
Feel free to ask questions, leave comments, etc. on this
post.
39

40. Book available
from BSI Press
in Q1, 2014
for information, email: book@hassellinclusion.com

41. Licence and Additional Resources
This presentation, “Accessibility is Primarily About People and
Processes, Not Digital Resources!” by Brian Kelly, Cetis is licensed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Note the licence covers most of the text in this presentation. Quotations
may have other licence conditions.
Images may have other licence conditions. Where possible links are
provided to the source of images so that licence conditions can be found.
Slides and further information available at
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/ozewai-2013/
41