JISC TechDis Online Accessibility Self Evaluation Service 2009-2010.

Background to the JISC TechDis Online Accessibility Self Evaluation service

There are many different approaches to accessibility and many different arguments to support them all. So long as they result in positive outcomes for the disabled person involved it could be argued that they are all equal - but there is little doubt that some are more equal than others. Certainly some are more sustainable than others, some create more independence for the disabled user. Some create better outcomes for the person who (for their own reasons) decided not to disclose a disability. From the JISC TechDis perspective, the fundamental guarantor of good practice is the extent to which accessibility is embedded in the culture of an organisation rather than the enthusiasm of an individual or a team. This leads to a 'maturity model' of accessibility practice.

Characteristics of early / immature support models

In the immature phase the focus is on

• encouraging disclosure through 'one off' initial assessment,
• supporting learners over barriers (once they have disclosed a disability),
• providing broad human support mechanisms (eg notetakers),
• locating expertise in a small team,
• buying specialist technology for all disabled users.

Characteristics of later / mature support models

In the later stages the focus shifts in ways that create more long-term sustainability - for example

• providing multiple opportunities for disclosure via different organisational systems,
• reducing institutional barriers for all (so disclosure may not be necessary),
• providing broad technological support mechanisms (eg notes on VLE reduce need for notetakers),
• drawing widely on expertise across the institution - technical skills, pedagogical skills, learner skills as well as disability support,
• providing productivity tools (often free or Open Source) for all users and commercial software for some disabled users.

Approaches, risks and characteristics

The risks of failing to meet learner needs are greater at the less mature end - despite there being a sharper focus on individuals. The annals of student experience are full of accessibility-blind tutors who never provided enlarged handouts in advance but relied on disability support staff to enlarge them on the photocopier after the lesson/lecture.

The model below illustrates a first attempt to create a simple model of 'accessibility maturity' along with a description of likely policies and approaches.

Luck: "With luck we won't have any disabled learners"	Tokenism: "Click here for a text only version"	Specialism: "Do you have a disability? Here are the support services we can offer if you declare it"	Standards: "Everything we produced has been produced to WCAG 2.0 guidelines"	Ownership: "Staff are trained to be flexible, creative and adaptable especially with simple e-learning approaches"	Partnership: "A range of learners - including disabled learners - work with developers and teaching staff to discuss/develop good practice"

Characteristics of each stage

Luck

Characterised by lack of clear or meaningful integration of accessibility into any institutional policies. Disability issues firmly (and solely) the responsibility of the disability team whose work involves helping learners over barriers that needn't exist in the first place. Expertise narrowly located in a few individuals.

Tokenism

Characterised by policies that describe accessibility and inclusion in broad, beneficent 'value statements' without specific commitments to practice. Disability issues largely responsibility of disability team and perceived as a specialist area. Possibly get a Disability Awareness session now and again but focused on issues such as correct language rather than practical accessibility practice.

Specialism

This is characterised by policies that aim to make it easy for disabled people to disclose a disability. Once disclosed they enter a world of specialist support that is largely unavailable for everybody else. Accessibility and inclusion policies tend to be standalone and the overall approach is focused on specialist help to get disabled users over barriers rather than reducing barriers for all.

Standards

This approach is similar to specialism but the the specialism has moved from learning support/disability officers to technical teams/web managers who are now responsible for good practice. In some respects this moves the agenda forwards by recognizing that everybody contributing resources to a virtual learning environment has to be aware of accessibility but in other respects it moves the agenda backwards because it

• focuses on accessibility as a technical consideration, ignoring the vital role pedagogy has to play.
• creates an "all or nothing" mentality. This often ends up discriminating against more learners, for example banning image based dyslexia friendly resources if they are not accessible to blind users.
• discourages people from exploring e-learning - it encourages them to stay with tried and trusted but largely inaccessible traditional practice because these are less likely to be scrutinised.
  

Ownership

Characterised by an open and experimental approach to teaching and learning, encouraging staff to develop a repertoire of skills. Relies on staff confidence and flexability being a significant component of accessible learning experiences. Recognises that it is strategically more sustainable to invest in reducing barriers than supporting disabled users to cross them. Likely to have good links between teaching and learning policies, e-learning policies and student support / disability policies. Focuses on adding value where possible and so is willing to have partially accessible resources. Accessibility is seen as cross institutional responsibility.

Partnership

Characterised by collaborative, innovative, participative approaches to teaching, learning and learner support. Teaching staff, network staff, librarians, learning support staff and learners are equally involved in reducing institutional barriers. Solutions more likely to be based on high creativity rather than high cost. Expertise is distributed, so is responsibility.

JISC TechDis Online Accessibility Self Evaluation Service 2009-2010.