More WCAG

Alonso et al (2010) conducted an educational experiment during a web accessibility course module to assess the test ability of the 25 level A success criteria of WCAG 2.0 by beginner trainee evaluators. The course covered an introduction to disabilities, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C), the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) basic principles and success criteria and the evaluation of accessibility on a website. The core of the course focused on the teaching of the WCAG 2.0 criteria. The main exercise consisted of 17 students manually evaluating a web page, at this time automated tools were not yet available. They had to rate each criteria as pass, fail or partial conformance. Results were relatively low in providing the right answer and students in discussions didn’t often agree on the results. They compared their study to Brajnik (2009) who used 35 participants in a similar study and concluded through comparison that WCAG 2.0 was far from testable for beginners. They argued that this was due to the wording of the criteria that hindered clear interpretation of them, combined with the lack of knowledge and need for more training that more support materials and tools are needed.

Alonso et al (2010b) conducted another study in a computing module taught over a 15 week period. Participants were involved in a jigsaw-based session where they had to individually read parts of the documentation from the guidelines and success criteria to then collaboratively agree interpretation. This was combined with building a mini website and an accessibility evaluation of a website. The final grades across all activities overall were low, and so was attendance in most lectures and jigsaw sessions. The conclusion drawn echoed their previous study that WCAG 2.0 was not easy to engage with or testable for beginners. Although none of these studies offer a conclusive empirical set of results they do suggest that some parts of WCAG are not easily agreeable and particular attention and caution should be paid if using the guidance as a teaching resource.

Al-khalifa and Al-khalifa (2011) agreed that learning web accessibility and implementing it can be a hard task for beginners. They argued that learning can’t be effectively done by reading guidelines alone to follow then and develop content or understanding, but novices need to practice evaluating and testing websites to gain more understanding first. They used a different element of the WCAG guidance to inform a teaching approach. They referred to the supplementary documentation that supports WCAG called Techniques that provides methods for understanding and addressing the success criteria and refers to three types of techniques: sufficient, advisory and common failures. Using this as guidance they used a tool to generate simple examples of the common failures the document referred to. These presented manageable, modular and easy to manually inspect examples of accessibility barriers. They concluded that instead of the complexities of WCAG teaching web accessibility to undergraduates requiring exposing them to practical and easy to assimilate examples to guide them through the process of accessibility learning and evaluation. This study offers no student data but does assert the importance of tools like the Accessibility Evaluation Assistance (AEA) and the Accessibility Example Generator (AEG) that simulate real-world barriers to explore.

 In agreement with Lazar (2004), Katsanos et al (2010) argues that if more people become familiar with and embrace accessibility ideas, then it is more likely that accessible websites will be developed (p.89). Like Al-khalifa and Al-Khalifa (2011) findings from Katsanos et al (2010) support the idea that activities mediated by appropriate tools can substantially aid the development of and motivation for good accessibility practices. They used a tool named Educational System to Support Learning through Paradigms (ESALP) that included reference to the WCAG criteria that helped to simulate real-world examples of accessibility violations and barriers for learners to explore. They claimed that with this type of activity learners are inspired to obtain a deeper knowledge of the subjects they are studying to develop a clearer picture and long lasting impression of problematic situations that could occur. Results of their course study with 27 students on a Human Computer Interaction program illustrated that using tools in problem based learning scenarios can be a valuable asset for educators teaching and learning the topic of accessibility. They found that only 2 out of 27 learners showed no improvement in a pre and post course assessment questionnaire and student perceptions were positive related to a tool-mediated educational approach to explore real world problems and challenges.

Whitney (2020) - instead of singular modules or course programs - integrated through out

LATER 

Cooper et al (2012) argued that technical accessibility guidelines like WCAG are only part of the picture and only focus on the technical aspects of accessibility. They explain that the WCAG criteria and evaluation tools are over oriented towards testing technical artefacts rather than evaluating user experiences of people with specific impairments trying to complete specific tasks. They argue that technical focus divorces accessibility from the user experience and the true understanding of accessibility and that accessibility knowledge should be situated in the real-world context of the relationships between the user and the resources because context is of real importance. This locates disability and the experience of accessibility within a relational socio-cultural frame. They put forward that technical guidance is not only a partial understanding but can be counterproductive to be able to learn and advocate about digital accessibility. They also assert like Whitney (2020) that accessibility should be integrated throughout, but instead of an evaluative checklist at the end of projects, testing with real users for accessibility should be built into a product development lifecycle to aid learning and knowledge development, echoing the guidance and recommendations for user engagement within industry (Ref, Ref, Ref).

Hassell (2019) technical checklist to disability and universal design understanding.

Empathy section:

Text…

Section - Where subjects are combined what is usually first - disability or technical