Considerations for Implementing a Holistic Organisational Approach to Accessibility Chris Bailey
Voula Gkatzidou
System Concepts 2 Savoy Court Strand London, WC2R 0EZ +44 (0)20 7240 3388
Human Centred Design Institute Brunel University London Michael Sterling 351 Uxbridge, UB8 3PH +44 (0)1895 267237
[email protected]
[email protected]
ABSTRACT Achieving accessibility and inclusivity within an organisation requires true commitment and consideration of many factors including the various digital and physical touchpoints for specific customer needs. This paper proposes a human-centred model of accessibility that complements existing standards and assists organisations in considering the full range of their user’s technical, operational and psychological requirements. An outline practice-based accessibility maturity model is proposed with which organisations can establish current commitment to accessibility and develop a road-map to implement true inclusivity. We also describe a case study which highlights how this model of accessibility can be adapted from an organisational perspective to define specific accessibility requirements for individual products and services.
CCS Concepts • •
Human-centered computing ➝ Accessibility ➝ Accessibility theory, concepts and paradigms. Social and professional topics ➝ Professional topics ➝ Computing profession ➝ Assistive technologies.
Keywords Accessibility Policy; Digital Accessibility; Implementing Accessibility, Organisational Accessibility, User Experience.
1. INTRODUCTION Ensuring digital products and services are accessible to users with disabilities remains challenging. If an organization is truly dedicated to achieving accessibility and inclusivity then they must consider many factors including the digital accessibility of their products and services delivered on websites, mobile applications, terminals, devices and other digital and physical touchpoints as well as the physical infrastructure of their premises. To achieve Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
[email protected]. W4A 2017, April 02 – 04, 2017, Perth, Western Australia, Australia Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licenced to ACM. ACM 978-1-4503-4900-0/17/04…$15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3058555.3058571
this ambitious aim pragmatically, the concept of ‘accessibility’ must shift from one that considers not only technical, structural and environmental requirements, to one that considers a range of additional operational, psychological and sociological factors. This paper describes a practice-based model of accessibility which considers accessibility from the human-centred perspective. It also presents an example of how the model can be adapted to show how accessibility should be adapted from an organisational perspective based on regulatory requirements and business needs. We then discuss the primary considerations for an organisation to develop accessibility maturity to implement true inclusivity.
2. BACKGROUND For many organisations accessibility legislation remains the primary motivation for considering accessibility. One of the primary challenges for organisations providing digital content on an international scale is defining an accessibility policy and strategy that is sensitive to the diversity of cultural, technical and legislative situations that may exist in different target markets [9]. While there are some signs of convergence in terms of legal and technical requirements, consistent global recognition and even definition of accessibility has not yet been achieved [13]. The Web Accessibility Initiative has long advocated a three-pillar model for web accessibility: web content (covered by WCAG 2.0), authoring tools (ATAG 2.0), and user agents (UAAG 2.0). The limitations of a guideline approach, especially when related to WCAG 2.0, are discussed elsewhere [8]. The primary limitation of this approach to accessibility from our perspective is that it recognises accessibility primarily as a binary technical requirement that a product either “meets” or does “not meet”. This does not consider accessibility from a human perspective and the range of additional operational, psychological and emotional factors. It is recognised that a more detailed exploration of certain categories of user needs are an important way to broaden the understanding of accessibility requirements for the Web [6]. Studies focussing on the relationship between accessibility and usability have suggested there is some correlation between the two [12]. Usability is emphasised when adopting a user-centred approach to evaluating task-orientated accessibility [2] and therefore should be considered together. Research also suggests it could be appropriate to extend the scope of accessibility from a strict view of covering individuals with disabilities to one that encompasses other groups. Older users have been identified as a segment of the population who can experience similar difficulties when interacting with digital products to people with disabilities [1]. Accessibility could also be considered even more generally as problems that are created by
technology, environment, and the context of use; this is particularly relevant when considering the use of mobile devices [15]. Accessibility may also not be considered an intrinsic characteristic of a digital resource but is determined by a range of complex political, social and other wider contextual factors [5]. A survey of accessibility practitioners highlighted the range of opinions in terms of an exact definition of the nature and scope of accessibility. If we are to promote accessibility and encourage its adoption, then the need for a common voice should not be understated [15]. The wider UX profession began a movement just over a decade ago to coordinate a series of professional initiatives to raise the status of the profession so it could take its rightful role at the heart of the development process [3]. As accessibility practitioners, we must recognise the tremendous growth in the User Experience (UX) industry and the tremendous value (and subsequent investment) many corporations make in this field and should therefore look to learn lessons from this discipline as much as possible.
3. DEFINING A HUMAN-CENTRED MODEL OF ACCESSIBILITY This paper asserts the view that accessibility should not be considered in isolation from other attributes of a product; accessibility, usability and user experience are all interdependent quality attributes of a product. They all need to be at an optimal level to ensure that the product can be used effectively. This is one of the key principles of the Web Accessibility Code of Practice, which has been formalised into a British Standard (BS8878) which defines a 16-step process for implementing web accessibility [4].
•
component refers to attributes such as efficiency (e.g. can the user accomplish tasks in a reasonable timeframe, error rate and error recovery (e.g. how many errors does the user make, and how well can they recover from them). This also represents the extent to which the product or feature set meets the users’ expectations. Psychological accessibility: once a user can access and use a product, services or premises, this component refers to aspects including but not limited to, how useful they find its functionality or facilities, how appropriate they are for the user and how satisfying their overall experience is. This represents the users’ desires.
We consider the Psychological element of this model to be of great importance. For some audiences, specifically older users, there may be no technical or operational barriers to accessibility when attempting to use a product; the barrier may be psychological and can be due a general lack of confidence when using digital technology from the user. Consider perhaps that a user had a negative experience with an on-line banking service in the past - they may assume that they cannot or be unwilling to use the service again today, despite the accessibility and usability being significantly enhanced during this time. When considered together, this model covers a range of the definitions of accessibility, including those covered in [15]. One benefit of the model if that all components can be evaluated and measured: • • •
Guideline conformance reviews and testing with assistive technologies can be used to measure technical accessibility. Laboratory or remote testing with users can be used to measure operational accessibility. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data can be used to measure psychological accessibility.
This is important as it allows an organisation to establish a baseline, define a roadmap and monitor improvement on a longitudinal basis.
Figure 1 A proposed human-centred model of accessibility. BS8878 is based on a user centred approach to accessibility, to provide products that are WCAG 2.0 conformant, usable and satisfying. Using this as inspiration, we propose a holistic model of accessibility (Figure 1) which recognises and categorises a range of factors from the users’ perspective which must be considered before accessibility can be truly achieved. In can be used in conjunction with BS8878 to help organisations better understand accessibility from the users’ perspective and to summarise the requirements for senior stakeholders. The model proposes three separate, but interdependent and overlapping components: •
•
Technical accessibility: this component refers to the fundamental requirements for a user to be able to access a product, services or physical environment. This element includes conformance with accessibility guidelines, compatibility with assistive technologies. This represents the basic user needs. Operational accessibility: once a user has access, this component refers to how well they can use and operate the product or navigate the physical environment. This
4. DEFINING A MATURITY MODEL FOR ACCESSIBILITY Organisations progress through a sequence of stages as their UX processes evolve and mature; they move from hostility towards acknowledging user needs to reliance on user research to shape their products [11]. Many variations of a UX maturity model have been developed to define an organisations current level of commitment to UX and develop a roadmap for future maturity. UX is now embedded in many large corporations and senior stakeholders are actively involved in its implementation, but this has not always been the case. We select a model developed by [7] and propose that this metaphor can be directly translated to the field of accessibility. If we then model this alongside a typical organisational strategy, we present a maturity model with six levels alongside programs which are representative of a typical organisation (Figure 2). Here we describe characteristics of the six stages of accessibility maturity: •
Unrecognised: accessibility is not considered important or is solely recognised as a legislative burden which the organisation adopts a reactive attitude to. It is considered towards the end of each product
•
•
•
•
•
development lifecycle. The recommendations from accessibility testing which are likely provided by an external resource are poorly implemented. Interested: accessibility is considered, but may be inconsistently implemented in throughout different workstreams. It is considered within individual product development lifecycle but the approach to ensuring accessibility may be handled is dealt with by an external resource with some in-house support. The organisation takes steps to be anticipatory to accessibility requirements. Invested: accessibility is considered very important and formalised programs emerge for all major projects. A dedicated accessibility lead is present. In-house resources are dedicated to accessibility on an on-going basis and it is embedded throughout the product development lifecycle. Committed: Accessibility is critical and senior stakeholders including Project Managers and Product Owners are involved in ensuring its implementation. A public commitment to accessibility has been made. Engaged: Accessibility is one of the core tenets of the organisations strategic goals, corporate social responsibility programs emerge and significant internal resources are dedicated to it. Director or executive-level personnel oversee its implementation. Embedded: accessibility is in the fabric of the organisation and is a core-component of its business strategy.
useful to them. Initiatives such as BS8788 and a general increase in understanding of the issue surrounding accessibility has seen accessibility considered much earlier in the process and its implementation better managed but proper resourcing may still be an issue. It takes time for attitudes to change and for value and return on investment to be realised by senior members of the organisational hierarchy. While it can take relatively short period for an organisation to move through the early stages of maturity, it can take considerably longer for an organisation to move through the later stages and up to 40 years to achieve full maturity [11]. When working with organisations who are at the early stages of accessibility maturity or event taking their first steps we must be patient and be prepared to make compromises.
5. THE HOLISTIC MODEL FROM AN ORGANISATIONAL PERSPECTIVE To address accessibility an organisation must first establish their outline accessibility requirements. Users’ interaction with an organisation is becoming increasingly complex; a number of digital platforms can be offered, each of which have a range of different accessibility requirements. We can repurpose the model presented in Figure 1 to represent accessibility from an organisational perspective. We use the example of the author’s experience of working on a new product from a global telecommunications company which is to be launched in two of their local markets. The organisation could be considered to have achieved level 3 of accessibility maturity and was actively working towards level 4; accessibility was a consideration in each project and a dedicated accessibility lead was present in the organisation. The product we use for this case study is a new subscription based IP-TV service. The UK is the lead market for the product launch in close collaboration with Italy. The individual, consumer-facing components of the product were: • • • •
Figure 2 Accessibility maturity model. We must recognise that growth in the wider discipline of usercentred design and subsequently the UX industry has taken place over many years. It was common for an organisation to design and build a product and then only conduct user testing in a narrow window before launch. The organisation may then have to risk launching a product with significant defects, launch a product which did not meet satisfactorily meets users’ needs or significantly delay the product launch and make expensive changes to the design. This is still the approach many organisations take towards accessibility. If we take a website as an example, an organisation may design and build it, then test it for WCAG 2.0 conformance and compatibility with assistive technology. If significant defects are found, then development workarounds may have to be implemented, the product launch will be delayed or launched with some defects present. Even if no significant defects are present, little consideration will have been made for how well non-visual users will be able to use the product, or even if the functionality offered by the website is
A graphical HTML5 user interface including an Electronic Program Guide (EPG). A physical set-top box. A remote-control unit (RCU). A paper-based quick start-up guide and a comprehensive digital user manual.
A functional prototype of each component had previously been developed. For the purposes of this case-study, we focus on the HTML5 user interface. To define accessibility requirements for the product, we must now consider both the organisational requirements (e.g. business needs) in addition to the users’ requirements. We can present this using the model presented in Figure 1: •
•
Technical accessibility: What were the basic accessibility considerations that must be addressed for the product to launch? In the UK, OFCOM, an independent regulator, define a series of accessibility requirements that a broadcaster must meet to obtain a broadcast licence [14]. Operational accessibility: What were the accessibility requirements for a user with disabilities to be able to use the EPG effectively and efficiently? While we could refer to WCAG 2.0 to help us define these, as an EPG interface is not commonly used with assistive technology so further investigation on the requirements to achieve this would be required.
•
Psychological accessibility: The pay TV market in the UK is highly competitive. We must therefore consider the accessibility services and features offered to consumers by competitors in the market so consumers would consider it comparable to that offered by competitors.
5.1 Putting the model into practice After defining the outline accessibility requirements for the project an external agency was commissioned to conduct the following: • •
•
A conformance review to establish if the product adhered to both existing and proposed future legislation. User testing of the product with a range of users with difference accessibility requirements. Users completed a range of tasks including initial set-up of the product, as well as tasks designed to evaluate the accessibility of the EPG itself. A competitor benchmarking activity to establish how well the product supported users with disabilities when compared to other UK competitors.
The outcome was used to define an accessibility roadmap for the product. We detailed a range of specific accessibility features and functions of the product which would be implemented over a period of 24-36 months. Features were prioritised according to their impact on both the organisation and the user. Current OFCOM regulatory requirements, for example, were prioritised. This led to the development of an accessibility policy for this IPTV product which, when considering the accessibility maturity model, would move the organisation towards level 4 from level 3.
6. CONCLUSION Our model of accessibility considers technical, operational and psychological aspects of accessibility which reflects the shift in attitudes on both the definition of accessibility and its relationship to usability and UX. It can be used to help organisations implement initiatives such as BS8878. This, along with the definition of an accessibility maturity model, provides a framework by which an organisation can pragmatically implement accessibility catering for both user and organisational requirements. We present a practice-based case study which demonstrates how this can be used from a product perspective, covering the lower-to-mid levels of the model. Further evidence is required to understand how this can be expanded to higher levels.
7. REFERENCES [1] Andrew Arch. 2009. Web accessibility for older users: successes and opportunities (keynote). In Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) (W4A '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-6. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1535654.1535655 [2] Rakesh Babu, Rahul Singh and Jai Ganesh. 2010. Understanding blind users’ web accessibility and usability problems. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(3), 73-94. [3] Nigel Bevan. 2005. Creating a UX profession. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10781079. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056820 [4] British Standards Institution. 2010. BS8878:2010. Web accessibility code of practice. London: British Standards Institution.
[5] Martyn Cooper, David Sloan, Brian Kelly, and Sarah Lewthwaite. 2012. A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting people and processes first. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA , Article 20 , 4 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207028 [6] Michael Cooper. 2016. Web accessibility guidelines for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference (W4A '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5 , 4 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2899475.2899492 [7] Renato Feijo. 2010. Planning your UX strategy. http://johnnyholland.org/2010/04/planning-your-ux-strategy/ Date accessed: 30/12/2016. [8] Brian Kelly, Liddy Nevile, EA Draffan, and Sotiris Fanou. 2008. One world, one web ... but great diversity. In Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) (W4A '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 141-147. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1368044.1368078 [9] Brian Kelly, Sarah Lewthwaite, and David Sloan. 2010. Developing countries; developing experiences: approaches to accessibility for the real world. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) (W4A '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 4 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1805986.1805992 [10] Effie Lai-Chong Law, Virpi Roto, Marc Hassenzahl, Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, and Joke Kort. 2009. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 719-728. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813 [11] Jakob Nielsen. 2006. Corporate UX Maturity: Stages 5-8. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-maturity-stages5-8/. Date accessed: 30/12/2016. [12] Helen Petrie and Omar Kheir. 2007. The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. Proceedings of the 2007 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA. 397-406. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240688. [13] David Sloan and Sarah Horton. 2014. Global considerations in creating an organizational web accessibility policy. In Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (W4A '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, , Article 16 , 4 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2596695.2596709 [14] OFCOM. What’s on the Telly: Proposed improvement to EPG accessibility for people with visual impairments. 2015. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/82207 /proposed_improvements_to_epg_accessibility.pdf. Date accessed: 05/01/2017. [15] Yeliz Yesilada, Giorgio Brajnik, Markel Vigo, and Simon Harper. 2012. Understanding web accessibility and its drivers. In Proceedings of the International CrossDisciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 19 , 9 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207
