FodnessMemo41

TITLE: Disability & Cyberspace: The Path to Accessible Web Technologies for All

ABSTRACT

> Aims: Detail the current state of post-secondary IT education, web browser development practices, website development practices, activist activities, and legislation relating to how individuals with disabilities use cyberspace; identify strengths and weaknesses in the current approach; recommend solutions to fix the weaknesses.

> Methods: Research current policies, interview individuals from the groups listed above, research best practices and standards.

> Expected results: Education does not include accessibility as a core component of software design, website designers are under time and budget constraints and cut standards compliance and accessibility from the design as "low hanging fruit" (desirable but not required), customers of website design companies do not mandate accessibility as a requirement, legislation does not require accessibility features in non-governmental websites, individuals with disabilities are not sufficiently organized to effect change, legislators don't understand the issues enough to push for change, browser manufacturers don't want to "rock the boat" by forcing code to validate in order for it to display.

> Expected significance and circulation: Significant amongst IT professionals and educators, activist groups, standards compliance advocates, and legislators working on issues of disability. Circulation amongst those groups, significant as a teaching tool and as a set of policy recommendations.

OVERVIEW

> What the study aims to accomplish: Detail the current state of post-secondary IT education, web browser development practices, website development practices, activist activities, and legislation relating to how individuals with disabilities use cyberspace; identify strengths and weaknesses in the current approach; recommend solutions to fix the weaknesses.

> How the study will accomplish these aims, and why the proposed approach is best: Policy research will detail the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulatory framework, and interviews will show the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to software design and disability advocacy. The proposed approach is best because pure research or pure ethnography would not be sufficient to detail the problem and provide space for workable solutions.

> Where you will obtain data: Researching policies (federal & state legislation) on the Internet, reading articles published by other scholars working on similar research, press releases and publications by advocacy groups, interviews with individuals with disabilities, web browser manufacturers, web developers, advocacy groups, legislators, and educators.

> Why the study is important, in general, and particularly at this historical moment: Support for standards compliance and accessibility is rising. The ACID series of tests put out by the Web Standards Project are being taken seriously by browser manufacturers, who are trying to make sure that their browsers are in compliance with published standards, which include accessibility features. The National Federation of the Blind sued Target in 2006 because Target's website was inaccessible to the blind, and they won, establishing a legal precedent for citizen groups suing a private company for a website being inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. The study is important in general because individuals with disabilities are an underserved community in cyberspace, and something needs to be done in order to make sure that this does not persist.

> Who will carry the study out, with what expertise and preparation?: I will carry out the study, with the expertise that I have gained from actually doing accessible web design in my professional career, and working with others on accessibility projects. I will prepare myself by getting training on how to properly do interviews, by researching the policies currently in place, and by reading current publications (scholarly and technical) on the issue, as well as familiarizing myself with the work of activist groups working on this issue. I will interview individuals with disabilities first, so I can get the best sense of how they use cyberspace, what their limitations are, and what they would like to see changed.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

> State of the phenomena: Educational institutions are not teaching accessibility as a core component of good software design, individuals with disabilities are not sufficiently organized and mobilized to affect change in regulatory frameworks, legislators are underinformed and/or undermotivated to enact change, policy frameworks are not sufficient to solve the problems of access faced by individuals with disabilities, software does not actively enforce accessibility requirements, and the norms and practices of web developers do not include accessibility, largely due to budget and time constraints.

> State of the social and cultural studies literature on the phenomena: The issue is important, but hasn't gotten the appropriate attention from the groups listed above, despite some gains (primarily in the area of standards compliance).

PREPARATION AND WORK THUS FAR

> Record and expertise of researcher: Practical, hands-on experience designing and implementing accessible websites, reading relevant standards on XHTML and accessibility, working with scanning software to determine standards compliance and accessibility level.

> Preliminary findings: Laws don't meet the needs of the disabled cyberspace community, time and money are constraints on developers that are used as justifications for not implementing standards compliant and accessible software, educational institutions do not prioritize accessibility as a core feature of software development, customers do not require (and in some cases prohibit) including accessibility features and standards compliance in order to save time and money, sites like YouTube do not have automatic accessibility features (such as subtitling based on voice recognition), web browsers do not actively enforce standards compliance and accessibility components of XHTML.

> Pilot studies: None. Based on personal experience and limited research.

METHODOLOGY AND PLAN OF WORK

> Conceptual framework: Foucault, perhaps? IT workers are disciplined to meet the customer's bottom line, not serve the users - standards compliance and accessibility are often cut for budget & time reasons, which hurts the disabled user base. Changing how they are disciplined at the educational level and at the managerial level can help this problem.

> Research questions: What criteria are used to determine how browsers should handle non-compliant code and non-accessible code? What criteria are used to justify creating non-accessible websites at the managerial level? How do web developers feel about creating non-compliant, non-accessible sites? What assistive technologies are in use today, and at what level are they deployed (OS, browser, webserver, client, third party)? On sites that have user-generated non-accessible content (YouTube), what automated accessibility mechanisms are in place, such as automated subtitlers based on voice recognition? If they are not in place, what was the decision making process like about how individuals with disabilities would be able to access and use the site? What are the core beliefs of educational institutions regarding the importance of accessibility? Are these values incorporated into the classroom? Do they become incorporated into the graduates? What policies exist governing accessibility & cyberspace? When and how were these policies created? Who is currently championing greater regulation of private corporate websites to enforce accessibility features? Who is making the counterarguments, and what are the counterarguments?

> Site justification: Educational institutions, since they are responsible for educating the next generation of web developers and browser manufacturers; web development companies, since they are responsible for actually writing the XHTML code, which is largely not accessible; browser manufacturers, since the browsers that they create do not enforce accessibility standards; legislators' offices, since they are responsible for creating the laws that govern accessibility & cyberspace.

> Study components: Research on policies, activist activities, and literature surrounding the issue; interviews with the groups named above.

> Schedule of activities: Research policies, literature review on relevant literature, research activist groups and their activities. Interview individuals with disabilities to get a sense of what they face and what recommendations for change they have. Interview browser manufacturers, web development groups, managers, etc to get a sense of the industry's perspective on the issue, and how they make decisions about accessibility. Interview educators and students at post-secondary institutions in IT programs to see how accessibility is taught and prioritized, and how that translates into the results observed from the industry. Interview activist organizations and legislators to determine what steps they are taking to solve the problems. Schedule follow-up interviews if necessary.

> Evaluation and Validity: Share results with colleagues to sanity-check and determine if any changes need to be made, or if anything substantial was overlooked. Verify results of interviews to ensure accuracy.

> Research Ethics: Leave interview questions open-ended enough that the individuals being questioned are speaking in their own voice, and that I am not putting words in their mouths.

DISSEMENATION

> Conference presentations: 4S, IASTS, graduate student conferences, perhaps IT conferences, accessibility conferences, legislative conferences.

> Publications: Dissertation, book, articles in journals and the IT press.

> Cross-expertise dialogue: Discussions with IT educators and professionals about the issue.

> Policy work: Advocate policy changes to ensure that the needs of disabled cyberspace users are met.