Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216 DOI 10.1007/s10339-008-0213-3
RESEARCH REPORT
Scaffolding the design of accessible eLearning content: a user-centered approach and cognitive perspective Tiziana Catarci Æ Loredana De Giovanni Æ Silvia Gabrielli Æ Stephen Kimani Æ Valeria Mirabella
Received: 14 January 2008 / Accepted: 7 April 2008 / Published online: 18 April 2008 Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract There exist various guidelines for facilitating the design, preparation, and deployment of accessible eLearning applications and contents. However, such guidelines prevalently address accessibility in a rather technical sense, without giving sufficient consideration to the cognitive aspects and issues related to the use of eLearning materials by learners with disabilities. In this paper we describe how a user-centered design process was applied to develop a method and set of guidelines for didactical experts to scaffold their creation of accessible eLearning content, based on a more sound approach to accessibility. The paper also discusses possible design solutions for tools supporting eLearning content authors in the adoption and application of the proposed approach. Keywords User-centered design Accessibility eLearning Cognitive disabilities Human factors
T. Catarci (&) L. De Giovanni S. Gabrielli S. Kimani V. Mirabella Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica ‘‘A. Ruberti’’, Universita’ degli Studi di Roma ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via Ariosto 25, 00185 Roma, Italy e-mail:
[email protected] L. De Giovanni e-mail:
[email protected] S. Gabrielli e-mail:
[email protected] S. Kimani e-mail:
[email protected] V. Mirabella e-mail:
[email protected]
Introduction As eLearning continues to spread rapidly across colleges, universities, schools, businesses and government agencies, the importance of providing accessible eLearning experiences fitting the preferences and requirements of learners with special needs is on the rise. eLearning accessibility involves both the removal of any obstacle to fluid interaction with the learning environment (user interface) and with the content to be acquired. There exist various standards and guidelines for facilitating the design, preparation, and deployment of accessible eLearning applications and contents, for instance: (IMS 2002; Learning Federation 2008; Freed et al. 2003; W3C 2004). However, most of these standards and guidelines are devoted prevalently to technical accessibility aspects of learning materials (e.g., content/media formats and navigation issues), while less attention has been given to the cognitive and didactical accessibility issues pertaining to eLearning. For instance, research indicates that W3C guidelines are often more suited to the ‘‘technical’’ aspects of accessibility (i.e., that a visual content is readable by a blind person through the support of assistive technologies, such as screen readers) rather than cognitive or ‘‘conceptual’’ ones, which are more related to the usability and quality of experience the user with disabilities is provided with when accessing that specific content (Di Blas et al. 2004). On the same note, during the process of developing such guidelines or even the eLearning materials, little, if any, consideration is often given to the relevant stakeholders. The process of developing guidelines for accessible eLearning materials and the materials themselves can benefit a lot from inputs provided by relevant stakeholders such as: didactical experts, human factors experts, as well as learners with disabilities. It is however worth noting that there exists some literature on
123
210
learner-centered design and accessibility: examples include (Nevile et al. 2005; Cooper 2003; De Marsico et al. 2006). In this paper, we present a case study outlining the usercentered design of a methodology and a set of guidelines aimed at scaffolding the development of accessible eLearning content, with consideration not only for accessibility in a technical sense, but also from a cognitive perspective. The methodology is named ‘‘no-frills’’ to underline its emphasis on simplicity and the real matching of learner needs—doing away with elements of content that are irrelevant in order to give room to the relevant ones (what does matter). The guidelines have been developed for each relevant mapping identified between critical contents and types of disabilities. Design solutions and tools for supporting eLearning content authors (e.g., teachers) in the adoption and application of the proposed approach have also been considered. The case study exemplifies the implementation of a user-centered approach (Norman and Draper 1986) for eLearning design in that it facilitates the incorporation of the primary stakeholders (teachers, learners, human factors experts) in the process of developing eLearning materials and systems. This work is part of the project VICE,1 a CNR/MIUR (Italy) project, whose goal is to explore how to develop effective learning content that is not only easily accessible by learners, but also easy to develop and reuse by didactical experts. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: ‘‘Related work on guidelines’’ presents related efforts on guidelines for accessibility in eLearning. In ‘‘The no-frills methodology and guidelines’’ we describe the user-centered process through which we realized the proposed methodology and set of guidelines, as well as the main lessons learned in evaluating the same. In ‘‘New tools for accessibility’’ we discuss possible design solutions for supporting authors in the development of accessible eLearning content based on our approach, and in ‘‘Conclusions’’ we conclude the paper.
Related work on guidelines The IMS Global Learning Consortium offers a major contribution to the study of accessibility in eLearning environments, by providing both the ‘‘best’’ practices and general principles. In particular, (IMS 2002) presents the ‘‘best’’ practices for producing accessible software applications and accessible content for online distributed learning. That document offers six principles that address accessibility issues for people who have sensory or mobility impairments:
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Allow for customization based on user preference Provide equivalent access to auditory and visual content based on user preference Provide compatibility with assistive technologies and include complete keyboard access Provide context and orientation information Follow IMS specifications and other relevant specifications, standards, and/or guidelines Consider the use of XML.2
The document also offers guidelines for: developing accessible communication and collaboration tools; developing accessible interfaces and interactive environments; the accessibility of specific topics like mathematics and sciences. Another study on accessibility in eLearning is presented by the Learning Federation (Learning Federation 2008). The Learning Federation is an initiative designed to create online curriculum content and infrastructure. The Learning Federation proposes the accessibility specifications for guiding the creation, delivery, and usage of accessible learning content. The proposed principles include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Legislative compliance. Appropriate learning object design. Authoring tool design and operation that supports accessibility of content. Access device independence. Customization based on user preferences. Provision for accessibility rating of content. Provision for specification of a level of telecommunications and hardware/software compliance.
A set of measurements and requirements to achieve the compliance with the guidelines is also provided. NCAM, which stands for the National Center for Accessible Media, is a research and development facility dedicated to the issues of media and information technology for people with disabilities in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. NCAM has published a set of guidelines entitled ‘‘Making Educational Software Accessible: Design Guidelines Including Math and Science Solutions’’ (Freed et al. 2003) which are aimed at capturing accessibility challenges and solutions, and presenting them in a format specifically designed to educate and assist educational software developers. These guidelines present an overview of the major issues surrounding the accessibility of eLearning and a set of indications corresponding to eight types of contents: images, multimedia, forms, tables, textbooks, interactivity, graphs and math. The guidelines lay out specific ways to make distance learning websites and educational software more accessible to students with disabilities.
1
VICE is an acronym for VIrtual Communities for Education (Comunita´ virtuali per la formazione).
123
2
XML stands for eXtensible Markup Language.
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216
As we had observed in ‘‘Introduction’’, such guidelines are primarily addressed to the technical accessibility issues of learning contents and applications. While we acknowledge the role of such guidelines, we call for the addressing also of the cognitive aspects pertaining to interaction with eLearning content, by including all relevant stakeholders in the guidelines development process, and by facilitating a user-centered approach to eLearning systems design.
The no-frills methodology and guidelines In this section we describe the design process and the main outcome achieved during our effort toward developing a sound methodology and a set of guidelines aimed at scaffolding didactical experts in their authoring of accessible eLearning content. The approach we followed was usercentered since we actively involved relevant stakeholders (e.g., didactical experts and learners with disabilities) in formative and comparative evaluations meant to validate our methodology and guidelines. Realizing the methodology and guidelines In developing our methodology and guidelines we followed the procedure described in the following three subsections. Categorization of types of disabilities or impairments We first categorized the types of disabilities or impairments for the potential learners. We considered the following main types of disabilities as being the most relevant ones for the target user groups of learners: visual, hearing, physical, cognitive-language impairments. Characterization of critical content types We then characterized the types of learning content that are critical when it comes to making the learning material accessible. This would be resourceful especially to the creators/authors of the didactical contents (e.g., a lesson), who are usually not well acquainted with the (technical) issues or problems of accessibility. With critical learning resource types we refer to typical didactical contents (e.g., of an eLearning module) that can affect accessibility. For example a graph (or an image) is a critical didactical content for people who are blind because it is not accessible as it is. Several lists of didactical contents are reported by some of the most notable organizations involved in eLearning standardization and specifications. LOM (Hodgings and Duval 2002), which stands for Learning Object Metadata, is one of the most comprehensive schemes developed for the description of Learning
211
Objects. In the Educational section of the LOM, there is a list of Learning Resource Types including: exercise, simulation, questionnaire, diagram, figure, graph, index, slide, table, narrative text, exam, experiment, problem statement, self-assessment, and lecture. We have partially adopted this list, in agreement with the opinion that ‘‘LOM allows this (the Learning Resource Types) element to be understood as designating types or formats of content, as well as potential uses of this content. Also, the values recommended by the LOM exclude many important types of content, and also exclude many educational applications of content’’ (Gabrielli et al. 2006). In our proposal we started with an investigation of only the elements from the LOM list that are both critical from an accessibility perspective and that are format independent. We considered the following elements from the LOM proposal to be format dependent: exercise, simulation, questionnaire, exam, experiment, problem statement and self-assessment. Their format, in fact, can vary according to the different types of contents (images, text, tables, etc.) they may include. For instance: an exercise can consist of several types of questions (open ended question, multiple choice question, etc). Each question can be presented as text (e.g. ‘‘How long was the Big Bang?’’), as text and image (e.g. ‘‘Which constellation is represented by the image below?’’), as text and table (e.g. ‘‘Describe the laptop sales trend using the information in the table below.’’), and so on. Moreover, we considered a slide and a lecture to be non-digital content with respect to the LOM definition. So far, our approach translates visual content to text and therefore, here, we do not list text and index as part of critical content. Consequently, we focus on four types of critical content from the LOM model: diagram, figure, graph, and table. We also considered another set of critical learning resource types which were derived from a list provided by NCAM. NCAM presents eight guidelines in relation with the same number of learning content types: images, multimedia, forms, tables, textbooks, interactivity, graphs and math (Freed et al. 2003). From NCAM we investigated: multimedia and math/scientific expressions. We did not take into account forms because the kind of accessibility issues they present are more related with the format rather than with the semantic meaning of didactical content. We also excluded textbooks, since we assumed they are in textual form, and interactivity, since it is not a kind of content. Associating the categories of disabilities with the critical content types The next step involved associating the realized categories of disabilities with the various types of critical content. At the point where a particular disability intersects with a
123
212
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216
particular critical content, we analyzed the range of accessibility barriers and opportunities presented. In the process, we were poised to develop indications that could be resourceful especially to the creator of the didactical contents of the learning material. It is worth noting that such indications can guide in specifying alternative content that is characterized by the following requirements: •
•
•
Usefulness is closely related to the concept of necessity of the content. The objective is for an author to eliminate the contents that are not necessary, in order to increase the overall usability of the didactic modules, especially in the case in which alternative content types (or formats) have also been introduced. Appropriateness is related to the selection of the right contents while taking into account the characteristics and requirements of a certain type of disability. Effectiveness is related to the capacity of the didactical content to enable the achievement of the learning goals.
In conducting our analysis we were aware that within each category of disability there are many variations and degrees of impairment that require specific strategies to be addressed. Also, there could be learners that exhibit more than one type of disability, like senior citizens having both sensorial and cognitive impairments. However, our first efforts were oriented toward providing didactical experts with a wide spectrum of specific indications supporting them in removing accessibility barriers from the teaching materials they were developing. As an example, to improve the accessibility of a figure for learners with visual impairments, we indicated how to provide significant alternative content that can properly represent that figure, according to the meaning and goals of the teaching material in which that specific resource type is embedded,
as well as encouraging authors to take into account the information processing capabilities of blind learners (e.g., their preferences in knowledge representation). Table 1 reports, schematically, the most relevant mappings identified between disabilities and type of content considered so far. Guidelines were developed for each relevant mapping identified between critical contents and types of disabilities, as mentioned in the previous section. They included detailed indications on how to create equivalent-alternative versions of inaccessible contents, as well as hands-on examples for authors on how to proceed during the repairing (Gabrielli et al. 2006). Figure 1 reports a selection of indications contained in the guideline developed for the type of content Multimedia w.r.t. Language/Cognitive disabilities in the initial stages of guidelines development. In practice, the guidelines are expected to support authors as they apply the no-frills methodology, to produce or transform eLearning materials into accessible contents. The no-frills methodology is primarily based on reducing complexity of eLearning content and on helping educators to make it more suitable to the physical and cognitive abilities of learners with special needs. It has been said: ‘‘Simplicity is power. The power to do less of what does not matter and more of what does.’’ (Jensen 2001). Although the quote was intended for the business community, it does apply to many areas, including the eLearning field. By applying the no-frills approach, didactical experts are encouraged to remove irrelevant contents (‘‘what does not matter’’) from the learning experiences they are creating. As for the relevant content [‘‘what does (matter)’’], the approach provides recourse for choosing the appropriate alternative form for the relevant content.
Table 1 Relevant mappings identified between types of disabilities and critical contents Type of content
Type of disabilities Visual
Hearing
Physical
Language/cognitive
Diagram
Audio descriptions, tangible images or their combination needed
Figure
Alternative text, zoom features, etc. needed
Graph
Non-visual descriptions needed
Simple, organized descriptions needed
Table
Non-visual summary descriptions and detailed listing of data needed
Clear and consistent descriptions needed
Multimedia
Audio descriptions of visual content needed
Math/scientific expression
Enlargement or semantic (audio) versions of expressions needed
123
Simple, organized descriptions needed
Captions, transcripts of audio content needed
Keyboard shortcuts, non time-limited controls needed Alternatives to mouse commands, etc.
Avoid distracting audio/visual element (e.g., learners with attention deficit disorder) Simplify complex expressions by using graphical representations
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216 4.1
213
of learners. In particular, we consider that the didactical content may be considered as:
Multimedia
Multimedia can be useful for learners, since a multi-modal presentation of
(a)
optional, in which case the content is not essential to the realization of the module’s objective; (b) mandatory, in which case the content is essential or relevant to the realization of the module’s objective. In the mandatory case, the didactical expert may also specify whether the level of accessibility is acceptable toward realizing the module’s objective. If the accessibility level is not considered acceptable for accomplishing the objective, the didactical expert may decide whether to translate the content or substitute it with some other relevant alternative content which is better able to contribute to the realization of the same objective.
information can be easier to understand. However, dyslexic learners (15-20% of the population) frequently experience visual discomfort when reading text. If the multimedia content includes text: Avoid light text on a dark background Use short and simple sentences Give instructions clearly avoiding long sentences of explanation Include a contents page at the beginning and an index at the end Use graphics, images, pictures to break up text Be aware that learners with ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder] can be impulsive, easily distracted, and inattentive. Flashing elements can be
User-centered refinement and validation
distracting for them, as well as anything that draws their attention away from the main content.
Fig. 1 Example of guideline for type of content Multimedia w.r.t. Language/Cognitive disabilities
The main goal of the approach is to provide scaffolding about accessibility solutions while at the same time making the most of educators’ didactical expertise when choosing the necessary and alternative content that matches the needs of learners with disabilities. Here below is a brief description of the different actions an author should perform while applying the no-frill methodology: 1.
2.
3.
Initially, the method requires the categorization of the potential learners, in terms of disabilities or impairments for the specific didactical module considered. The next step involves identifying the content types the didactical module is made of. For every type of content, the methodology analyzes its impact on each of the categories of the learners in terms of physical accessibility (the learner can practically access the content) and accessibility from a cognitive point of view (the learner can effectively access the content according to his/her cognitive processing capabilities). In the first case, the focus is on accessibility as intended in a rather general sense, whereas in the second case, the focus is on accessibility related more to didactical effectiveness. The third step involves exploiting opportunities for inserting alternative content that corresponds to the critical content under consideration for some category
To assess the value in use of our methodology and accessibility guidelines, we conducted a series of formal and informal evaluation activities, involving all relevant categories of stakeholders. In the following, we outline the key findings from the two main phases of our evaluation: a formative assessment and a comparative evaluation. Formative evaluation At this stage we asked eight didactical experts to work individually. Their task involved inspecting the contents of an eLearning web course (XML and SCORM3 compatible) we had developed, consisting of four basic modules of teaching material on computer science topics (European Computer Driving License material). These included a series of web pages containing both text and the collection of critical content of the types mentioned above: figures, diagrams, graphs, tables, multimedia, and math/scientific expressions. The participants were asked to examine and identify, within the eLearning course, any content that might have been critical for learners with disabilities and to make it accessible to them by following the accessibility guidelines and the no-frills approach described above. These were made available within the learning environment as HTML links that the experts could navigate whenever required. The alternative contents created by didactical experts were reported on paper protocols, then added to the course material (in the form of short descriptions or metadata) by 3
SCORM stands for Sharing Content Object Reference Model (ADL, 2001).
123
214
the evaluation moderator, so that subsequent participants could evaluate the appropriateness of the alternative content previously developed and stored by other authors. Didactical experts were asked to think aloud during their evaluation work (taking approximately 30–45 min) and were briefly interviewed at the end of the task to collect their impressions about the guidelines and methodology used, as well as any difficulties they encountered. Key findings The study showed that guidelines were mostly referred to at the beginning of the activity, but less inspected later on (probably due to a difficulty in browsing the document structure). We thus restructured our guidelines by providing under each major category (corresponding to critical learning type), an overview (basic step and brief description) and a detailed comment. Links too were provided for further information on how to perform more advanced/ complicated tasks. As far as the use of the no-frills methodology is concerned, we observed that most of the difficulties didactical experts experienced were at the point of translating or substituting critical learning contents with appropriate alternative and accessible versions. This task turned out to be quite time consuming, particularly for critical contents such as diagrams, graphs, tables and scientific-math expressions. Also, participants used to always apply the same set of ‘‘translation’’ strategies (e.g., inserting textual description for visual contents) to the material. Use/elaboration of more original alternatives was rare, even though this option was clearly suggested in the evaluation guidelines. We interpreted this finding as showing that there is currently lack of support for content creators to get them properly trained and assisted on accessibility issues when dealing with eLearning material preparation. We also realized the potential risk that content too difficult or time demanding to translate, would be classified as optional. These issues are further supported by previous studies in the field, for instance: (Dix et al. 2004; Mahemoff and Johnston 1998; Van Welie et al. 2000), that have observed how guidelines are often expressed in a too abstract format to be easy to apply in practice. They can be particularly difficult to interpret and apply, especially by readers who have not yet developed an expertise in the domain considered. Comparative evaluation In an effort to move beyond the formative evaluation, we designed and performed an experiment that was comprised of three phases. The primary purpose of this experiment was to assess whether our approach (our guidelines and
123
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216
proposed no-frills methodology) have greater utility/usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness when compared with conventional accessibility guidelines for e-learning (in this case, NCAM guidelines). It is worth noting that some of the by-products of carrying out this experiment were: the collection of relevant information/feedback on how to improve/refine both our approach and a corresponding support tool, and the realization of Learning Objects improved for accessibility. Since we intended to carry out complex research involving users with various types of impairments, we chose first to start with issues relating to learners who are blind or visually impaired. In order to carry out the experiment, we realized five Learning Objects related to fundamental concepts in marketing and that were conceived for users without disabilities. In the first phase of the comparative evaluation, we asked five didactical experts to work on the five developed Learning Objects pertaining to different concepts in marketing and transform them into accessible Learning Objects for learners who are blind or visually impaired, and who navigate web pages using a screen reader. The enlisted didactical experts had some knowledge in preparing/ authoring hypertext documents/artifacts. Each expert filled an informed consent form. Moreover, each expert was provided with a demographics questionnaire. During the second phase, two accessibility experts evaluated the actual accessibility of the ten improved Learning Objects using the automatic accessibility checker A-Prompt (A-Prompt 2008) in order to eliminate any residual inaccessible element. In the third phase of the experiment, we involved four blind users between the age of 25 and 30, who had no knowledge in marketing and who had some experience in navigating the web using a screen reader. Each user was given: an informed consent form, one Learning Object made accessible through the no-frills approach, description of the task to carry out, questionnaire pertaining to the user’s experience while studying the assigned Learning Object, and an assessment questionnaire with five multiplechoice questions to examine the achieved learning level regarding the marketing concept corresponding to the assigned Learning Object. The assigned task involved the user studying the Learning Object and then filling in a multiple-choice questionnaire/assessment test in order to assess the level of comprehension/learning of the didactical material. The blind users were also expected to point out in the other questionnaire any trouble in browsing the Learning Object and the presence of useless or disturbing elements. Moreover the users were asked to give any suggestion using the latter questionnaire on how to improve technical accessibility and understandability of didactical material.
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216
Key findings
215
Results from the first phase indicated a good appreciation of our no-frills methodology and guidelines because of their clarity, comprehensibility, ease of consultation, and above all for the way the methodology approaches the accessibility theme with the no-frills/simplicity concept. As for the second phase, the accessibility automatic checker A-Prompt did not find inaccessible elements in the ten Learning Objects. Both sets of guidelines that were used proved effective in helping the authors to eliminate every technical accessibility barrier. Results from the third phase confirmed the technical accessibility of the courses because all of them said that they did not have any problem while navigating. One of them pointed out that he encountered some difficulties with the links on the navigational bar: the used screen reader did not allow him to distinguish the link already visited from those yet not clicked. It is probably for this reason that this user pointed out that he would have preferred a sequential navigation to a hyper-textual one. The other three users did not experience this problem and so they did not state any preference for a sequential navigation. This and other minor indications prove that one of the greatest problems in creating accessible contents is due to the fact that we can hardly foresee what assistive technology will be used by the user with impairments (e.g., which specific screen reader). Another user suggested the insertion of an introductory page to describe the course structure and to give advice/instruction for navigation: according to this solution, the blind user would promptly be informed on how to navigate the Learning Object and he would not have to understand it by navigating. We also found a generalized appreciation of the quality of the Learning Objects. Moreover, the didactical material given to the users was very effective from a didactical point of view because all the students had good results in the assessment test.
who decide to retrieve materials not originally created for users with special needs. This is not the approach generally recommended by the accessibility literature for generating high quality didactic contents. However, the approach could bring some important advantages in specific eLearning contexts, such as costs and saving time in the production of the required materials. Initial investigations conducted during the user requirements analysis of the VICE project showed authors’ increased willingness to work at transforming contents into accessible ones in return for the possibility of reusing existing materials for the design of university courses. Our design work for the tool has been centered on improving the user experience of adopting the no-frills methodology while developing eLearning contents for learners with special needs. To this aim we realized that the tool should make automatic or semi-automatic the application of any technical step of our no-frills methodology that would not benefit from human intervention or expertise, such as the identification of critical contents within the eLearning material. In addition, the tool should prompt, inform and capitalize on authors’ didactic knowledge and decision-making when addressing the non-technical steps of the method (e.g., creating an alternative-equivalent version of the content). We currently see an interesting matching between these design requirements and the deployment of digital assistance platforms (including text-to-speech technology) to support authors in the application of our guidelines. An avatar-based interface might guide the didactical expert through the different steps of the no-frills methodology, providing also relevant advice on the creation of accessible eLearning materials, by relying on the guidelines content. The presentation of this content through natural and intuitive interfaces is likely to speed up the process of authoring and repairing Learning Objects performed by didactical experts (e.g., in web environments) and also to facilitate authors’ acquisition of expertise on accessibility by using our guidelines in the authoring practice.
New tools for accessibility
Conclusions
The validation and refinement work on our methodology enabled us to realize the need to make our guidelines available to didactical experts in the most usable, natural, effective way, during the authoring of eLearning material. A sensible solution may be to provide didactical experts with online digital assistance when they are creating new Learning Objects, especially in the case where the Learning Objects are addressed to learners with special needs. We have recently conducted prototyping activities of an authoring tool of this kind for didactical experts (Gabrielli et al. 2005). The tool could also be useful for the authors
In this paper we have highlighted various issues with most of the existing efforts for developing accessible eLearning material. We have proposed and described a user-centered methodology and guidelines for enhancing the development of accessible eLearning content. We have described how the proposed methodology and guidelines have been developed and evaluated with relevant stakeholders. We have also indicated possible design solutions for supporting didactical experts in developing accessible eLearning material inline with the proposed methodology and guidelines.
123
216
As research in the cognitive and neurosciences expands our understanding of the needs of learners with disabilities/ impairments and of their information processing requirements, accessibility approaches like the one we have presented can feed this knowledge into the design of interactive learning systems and contents. The case study described shows the value of applying user-centered design when developing methods and tools to improve accessibility. In this way, it is possible to realize a sounder conceptualization of accessibility, going beyond its technical aspects and taking into account other relevant dimensions that determine the success (or failure) of a learning experience. Future efforts toward improving the accessibility and usability of eLearning contents will ensure their better acceptance, adoption, and use by people with disabilities/impairments, and who are expected to also have a large spill-over effect to the wider society in terms of eInclusion (e.g., making eLearning opportunities more attractive and suitable to the ageing population in work or domestic environments). More research is also needed toward realizing new methods and tools in support of accessibility, particularly for designers of eLearning experiences who want to verify (e.g., by means of appropriate metrics) and optimize accessibility features at the different stages in the design process. Our future work will further investigate the design of interactive and intuitive authoring tools supporting the creation of accessible eLearning content. We intend to incorporate our revised methodology and guidelines into such tools. We also aim at extending the current methodological framework considered, to cover a larger set of disabilities/impairments and types of contents.
References ADL (2001) Advanced distributed learning initiative, shareable content object reference model (SCORM) version 1.2: The SCORM overview, http://adlnet.org/Scorm/downloads. cfm#spec] A-Prompt (2008). University of Toronto, A-Prompt, Accessed Apr 2008. http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/ Cooper M (2003) Communications and information technology (C&IT) for disabled students, In: Powell S (ed) Special teaching
123
Cogn Process (2008) 9:209–216 in higher education successful strategies for access and inclusion, (Kogan Page) London De Marsico M, Kimani S, Mirabella V, Norman KL, Catarci T. (2006) A proposal toward the development of accessible e-Learning content by human involvement. Univers Access Inf Soc 5(2):150–169 Di Blas N, Paolini P, Speroni M (2004). ‘‘‘Usable accessibility’ to the web for blind users,’’ Adjunct proceeding 8th ERCIM workshop on user interfaces for all, http://ui4all.ics.forth.gr/workshop2004/ publications/adjunct-proceedings.html Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R (2004) Human-computer interaction. Prentice Hall, Hillsdale Freed G, Rothberg M, Wlodkowski T (2003). ‘‘Making educational software and websites accessible. Design guidelines including math and science solutions’’, Accessed Jun 2007. http://ncam. wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline Gabrielli S, Mirabella V, Teso M, Catarci T (2005). The design of an authoring interface to make eLearning content accessibile. Proceeding INTERACT 05, Rome (Italy), 1100–1103 Gabrielli S, Mirabella V, Kimani S, Catarci T (2006) A boosting approach to the development of eContent for learners with special needs. J Educ Technol Soc 9(4):17–26 Hodgings W and Duval E (2002). ‘‘IEEE LTSC Learning Object meta-data LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft,’’, Accessed Apr 2008. http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/ IMS (2002). ‘‘IMS guidelines for developing accessible learning applications, Version 1.0,’’ IMS white paper, Accessed Apr 2008. http://www.imsproject.org/accessibility/ Jensen B (2001) Simplicity: the new competitive advantage in a world of more, better, faster. perseus publishing Learning Federation (2008). Learning federation, http://www. thelearningfederation.org, Accessed Apr 2008 Mahemoff MJ, Johnston LJ (1998) ‘‘Principles for a usability-oriented pattern language,’’ Proceeding of Australian computer human interaction conference OZCHI’98, IEEE computer society, Los Alamitos, Adelaide, pp 132–139 Nevile L, Cooper M, Heath A, Rothberg M, Treviranus J (2005) Learner-centred accessibility for interoperable web-based educational systems, Proceeding 14th international world wide web conference (WWW2005), Chiba, Japan, May 10–14, 2005 Norman DA, Draper SW (Eds) (1986). User centered system design: new perspectives on human–computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Van Welie M, Van der Veer GC, Elie¨ns A (2000) ‘‘Patterns as tools for user interface design,’’ International workshop on tools for working with guidelines, Biarritz, France, pp 313–324 W3C (2004). ‘‘Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0, W3C recommendations, working draft 29,’’ November 2004, Accessed Apr 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#overview-designprinciples
