Joel, a journalist, struggles to complete required onlinetraining. His media organization, which has more than 200 employees, uses anonline training program that includes videos and webinars. Joel is hard ofhearing; the videos do not offer captioning or even a transcript.

Anya, a university professor, is legally blind. She uses acomputer with assistive technologies, including a screen reader. Each year, completingrequired compliance training is a frustrating experience. The eLearning programdoes not allow her to control text size, color, or contrast. She simply cannotread the screens. To make matters worse, it is not compatible with any screenreader Anya has tried. “It’s complicated to be disabled,” she says, exasperated.

Jordan is a public policy expert with multiple master’sdegrees; she’s a savvy longtime computer user. She also has multiple sclerosis.Sometimes, she says, her brain sends the wrong signals to her hand; her taps,clicks, or keystrokes go awry. Text on her phone disappears, or she can’t getprograms to launch on her computer. Why not use voice commands? Herhigh-pitched voice, altered by a bout with a thyroid tumor, doesn’t alwaysregister accurately with voice-recognition software. It misses part or all ofwhat she says. Repeated failed attempts to enter information can cause her togive up in frustration or, at a minimum, sap her limited energy.

Esteban is an aeronautics engineer and a group manager. Whenhe attempts to complete the annual managers’ training at his company, hestruggles with the Americanized idioms, jargon, and complex words used in thecourses.

These examples offer compelling reasons for web- and mobile-basedeLearning content to be accessible to people with different abilities andbackgrounds. There’s another powerful reason: Accessible content improves theexperience of all learners.

“In a lecture, if someone is writing on a whiteboard ordrawing a diagram, it leverages the visual. I need to provide an auditoryequivalent through a description. I’m not visually handicapped, but I’ll oftenlisten to lectures from MOOCs [massive open online courses] driving in my car,relying only on the auditory. That’s a form of universal accessibility,available for me in a just-in-time format, so I can learn it in a way that’sconvenient for me,” said Jean Marrapodi, the chief learning architect at Applestar Productions and a Guild Master.“We have to be aware of that when we’re designing eLearning—that it’s notnecessarily for ADA but it may be for the convenience of learners.”

Helen Walsh, an accessible-media consultant and executivedirector of Diverse Disability Media, expresses frustration with the lack ofaccessible content. “Most people are thinking about their design instead ofthinking about the target audience,” she said. They argue that no one hasrequested accessible content, but “there is no audience if the content is notaccessible; you develop the audience by providing accessible content.”

Many individuals who need to enlarge type, enhance contrast,or use captioning on videos do not regard themselves as disabled, yet theybenefit tremendously from accessible eLearning content. Even if no one in aparticular company or university course requests accommodation for adisability, accessible or universal design makes sense.

“Our focus is accessibility for people with disabilities,”said Jared Smith of WebAIM, a nonprofit webaccessibility consulting organization based at Utah State University. “But byimplementing that accessibility, there are significant benefits for all users;there are benefits on the development and design side with standardization andby following the guidelines and thinking about good design and usability.”

“Things that may cause minor usability issues for some usersmay have a more notable impact on users with disabilities,” Smith said. Butaddressing those issues can make using eLearning easier, more convenient, andless frustrating for everyone. And if eLearning is easier to use, learners arelikely to be more engaged and willing to complete the training.

Why make eLearning accessible?

Still not convinced? If offering a better user experience isn’tsufficient motivation to improve the accessibility of eLearning content,avoiding a lawsuit might be.

In the United States, several federal laws address accessfor people with disabilities. Particularly relevant to eLearning are the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act:

• The ADA requires federal, state, and local“public entities,” which include governments, schools, courts, and more, toprovide the public with equal access to services and programs. They mustprovide “auxiliary aids and services” when needed to ensure effective communication.The ADA also requires businesses and services that are available to the generalpublic to be accessible. In addition, Title I of the ADA requires that employersoffer “reasonable accommodation” to employees with disabilities.
• Section 508 prohibits any federal agency fromprocuring electronic and information technology, goods, and services that arenot fully accessible. This includes software, website design, apps, and educationalprograms. An update to Section 508 laws on website accessibility, the Section 508 Refresh, passed its final review by the US Access Board on September 14; it will bepublished in the Federal Register after a final review by the Office ofManagement and Budget.

Federal agencies are expresslyrequired to comply with Section 508. WebAIM’s website points out several ways that Section508 also affects public and private institutions. For instance:

• Businesses that supply information technologygoods and services to the federal government must comply with Section 508.
• State governments that receive funding under theAssistive Technology Act (all states do) must comply with Section 508; toreceive this funding, they must implement Section 508 in all state entities,including universities. Some states have incorporated Section 508 into statelaw.

An initial goal of the ADA was to ensure that physical facilities—hotels,stores, banks, etc.—were accessible to people with disabilities. Case lawincreasingly includes business websites and online-only businesses as “placesof public accommodation” under the ADA. The Department of Justice (DoJ), theDepartment of Education, affected individuals, and advocacy organizationsactively pursue compliance. DoJ handles complaints about ADA and Section 508violations, including a growing number of lawsuits regarding denial of onlineaccess. For example, courts found that Target’s websites were covered by theADA when the National Federation of the Blind sued (Target settled in 2008); whenthe National Association of the Deaf sued in 2013, Netflix agreed to provideclosed captioning on all its video; and users with visual impairments have suedthe NBA, Red Roof Inn, and eHarmony over inaccessible websites.

It’s not only corporations: Public and private universities have faced lawsuits over inaccessible eLearning.Florida State University settled a lawsuit with two blind students in 2012 andagreed to “continue” efforts to make courses accessible; Harvard and the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) are both dealing with lawsuits over their failureto provide closed captioning in eLearning. And the Department of Education’sOffice for Civil Rights is investigating hundreds of school districts and othereducational agencies to determine whether their websites are ADA compliant,according to Andy Jones, writing for Legal NewsLine.

If you think you’re off the hook because your eLearning isfor employees, rather than students or members of the public, think again. TheADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonableaccommodation for employees with disabilities. This includes “changing tests, training materials, or policies” to make them usable by employees who have disabilities,according to the Department of Labor–Office of Disability Employment Policy’sJAN (Job Accommodation Network) website, AskJAN.org.

The requirement holds whether the training is:

• In-house or provided by an outside entity
• On-site or off-site
• Required or optional

If eLearning is offered to employees, it must be accessibleto all employees.

In fact, employers are required to provide equal access toany information communicated in the workplace to non-disabled employees,including, for example, a portal where employees view pay stubs and benefitsinformation; an intra-office social network like Yammer; even a posteradvertising a company picnic. Anya’s employer, a state university, and Joel’semployer are both breaking the law.

Whether your organization is public or private, corporate oreducational, online-only or a physical classroom, access is essential—notoptional. Why wait to be sued?

Global accessibility standards

Decades ago, advocates for accessible technology placed moreemphasis on assistive devices, such as trackballs and Braille keyboards, thanon content. The Center for Accessible Technology (C for AT) in Berkeley, California, was established in 1983,spurred by a parent who sought an accessible computer for her daughter, who wasboth legally blind and a wheelchair user. But when the Internet becameubiquitous, the Center “started thinking, ‘Maybe we’re working on the wrong endof the pipe,’” said Dmitri Belser, executive director of the C for AT. “Makinga person’s computer accessible is one thing, but if the Internet is notaccessible to them, it kind of doesn’t matter. They may be able to do wordprocessing, but they’re not going to be able to get the information they need.So we started doing web accessibility consulting.”

Web accessibility evaluation entails determining whether contentcomplies with Section 508 or the global standard, Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines (WCAG) 2.0. While the United States is a leader in terms of legislating content accessibility, theWorld Wide Web Consortium (W3C)’s WCAG 2.0 is the preeminent standard. WCAG 2.0 is “technology neutral,” whichmeans that it applies to a broad range of content and formats. It is anapproved ISO standard (ISO/IEC 40500).

WCAG 2.0’s three conformance levels are more explicit and comprehensive thanSection 508, according to the United States Access Board (which developed Section 508!). Thus content mightcomply with Section 508 but not with WCAG 2.0. Find out more in this table that compares the standards.

Many countries require that government websites comply with WCAG 2.0 AAstandards, the middle level; some countries go further: Israel mandates thatlarger businesses’ websites be compliant, and Norway requires that nearly allwebsites comply.

Businesses and organizations in the US are not legallyrequired to adopt WCAG 2.0, but they are encouraged to use the AA guidelines tomeet ADA and Section 508 obligations. And the proposed 508 Refresh incorporatesWCAG 2.0 Level A and AA standards.

The acronym POUR captures thefour underlying principles for WCAG 2.0 content:

• Perceivable—Availableto the senses. If something is presented in visual media (image or video), youshould provide alternative (or alt) text descriptions for blind or low-visionlearners. If content is auditory, you should provide a transcript orcaptioning.
• Operable—Userscan interact with the content using standard input devices, including a mouseor keyboard, or using adaptivetechnology. All content should be keyboard accessible; if all controls andinteractive elements have keyboard equivalents, the content will work with mostadaptive devices.
• Understandable—Contentis clear and unambiguous. Wording should be simple and concise; idiomatic orcomplex language presents a barrier to understanding. Text is supplemented withaudio and visual content. For people with some reading or cognitivedisabilities, visual content is the only format they can comprehend.
• Robust—Thecontent is accessible using a wide range of technologies and abilities so thatlearners may access it using their preferred technology.

ARIA

Most eLearning includes interactive or navigational elementsin addition to text and images. Proper use of HTML5, a text markup language,can make text accessible; ARIA (accessible rich Internet applications) is astandard that can make complex elements and functions accessible. These mightbe based on:

• CSS,which works within HTML5 and describes how HTML5 elements are displayed
• JavaScript,a programming language used to create interactive or active elements on a webpage, such as text that grows larger when the user clicks on it
• Ajax,a technique that allows quick updating of web pages
• DHTML,or dynamic HTML, the combination of HTML5 with CSS and JavaScript or otherscripts that allows animation on web pages

For example, many content pages include layered menus.Clicking on a top-level heading opens a drop-down menu; clicking on an elementin that menu might open a third level, and so on. These menus are not simpletext, and they cannot easily be read by a screen reader or navigated using akeyboard. ARIA “landmarks” allow information about these elements and functionsto be communicated to assistive technology, such as a screen reader. ARIAenables developers to map controls so that, for example, a learner can use the tabkey to move from element to element in a logical order, or a screen reader willread the text in a way that will make sense to the learner.

Putting it all together

It’s much easier to create accessible eLearning than to goback and “retrofit” inaccessible content; some eLearning content cannot be“fixed” to be accessible. Upcoming spotlight articles will offer guidance on makingcontent accessible for learners from different backgrounds and with variousdisabilities.

References

Accessible Technology Initiative. “Higher EducationLawsuits.” California State University–Chico.
https://www.csuchico.edu/ati/higher_edu_lawsuits/index.shtml

Caldwell, Ben, Michael Cooper, Loretta Guarino Reid, andGregg Vanderheiden (eds.). “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.”World Wide Web Consortium. 11 December 2008.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Job Accommodation Network. “Employers’ Practical Guide toReasonable Accommodation Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” USDepartment of Labor–Office of Disability Employment Policy.
https://askjan.org/Erguide/One.htm

Jones, Andy. “Department of Education increasesinvestigations into website compliance with ADA.” Legal NewsLine. 25 May 2016.
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/510738182-department-of-education-increases-investigations-into-website-compliance-with-ada

Rogers, Mark. “Government accessibility standards and WCAG2.” PowerMapper. 19 June 2016.
https://www.powermapper.com/blog/government-accessibility-standards/

United States Access Board. “Access Board Approves Rules onICT Refresh and Medical Diagnostic Equipment.” 14 September 2016.
https://www.access-board.gov/news/1824-access-board-approves-rules-on-ict-refresh-and-medical-diagnostic-equipment

United States Access Board. “Comparison Table of WCAG 2.0 toExisting 508 Standards.”
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/background/comparison-table-of-wcag2-to-existing-508-standards

United States Access Board. “Guide to the Section 508Standards.”
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards#(a)

United States Access Board. “Text of the Proposed Rule: AppendixA to Part 1194 – Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Application and ScopingRequirements.”
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/proposed-rule/text-of-the-proposed-rule

WebAIM. “United States Laws: Overview of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 504 and 508).” 26 August 2013.

https://webaim.org/articles/laws/usa/rehab 

WebAIM. “United States Laws: Overview of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 504 and 508).” 26 August 2013.https://webaim.org/articles/laws/usa/rehab