For today’s tech snack, I will be discussing the accessibility of Web 2.0 tools and apps. If you are a frequent reader of this blog( or frequent visitor to my twitter feed), you know that I have continued to evaluate Web 2.0 tools but I have also been looking at the accessibility of such tools since 5/2017. This was a change because prior to 5/2017, I mistakenly took it for granted that Web 2.0 tools were accessible for people with disabilities. As a person with a degree in Special Education and a parent of a child who has Sensory Processing Disorder, I am embarrassed to say that it wasn’t on my radar prior to 5/ 2017.
I have found that many Web 2.0 tools need a lot of work when it comes to accessibility, which has really changed my perspective about which tools I use with my students or share with my faculty.
What to look for?
The definitive guide for web accessibility is the Web Wide Web Consortium with their WCAG(Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) standards. The WebAIM website also provides guidelines for documents, files and web accessibility. A Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT™) is a document that explains how information and communication technology (ICT) products such as software, hardware, electronic content, and support documentation meet (conform to) the Revised 508 Standards for IT accessibility. (VPAT are documents used in the United States, not required by companies outside the US.)
Now, I have reviewed these documents and in the interest of trying to create something easy and useful for my faculty to use, I created a Web 2.0 tools Accessibility checklist based on the recommendations from the VPAT and WebAim standards. At the request of some fellow educators, I also created an accessibility checklist for apps. The documents are below:To get more information about what is on the Web 2.0 tools checklist, check out the ebook I created on Bookcreator to dive a little deeper.
*It is important to note that the app accessibility checklist was designed to be used with apps that are marketed to the general public not for apps that were created for a specific audience in mind(like communication apps.) There is a difference between an app that is made specifically to help people with disabilities and an accessible app.*
So if a tool scores low on the scorecard, should you discard using it?
The higher something rates on the score card, the better the tool is for accessibility. If a particular app or tool rates low, you may want to consider using a different app or tool because that means it may be problematic for other users as well, not just those who are disabled.
Some accessibility flaws, however, do not necessary mean you should discard using a tool or app all together. At the end of the day, it is about the content not the tool. Does the tool provide alternative ways for students to get the content and engage with the content?
For example, I love using the Web 2.0 tool Quizizz, but by their own admission, they are not 100% 508 compliant. It does provide alternative ways that students can access and understand the content, and that is an important feature. It is important to know the pros and cons of any tool you choose to use with your students so that you can select tools that will allow everyone to engage and understand content.
It is also important to know that some edtech companies are better about their accessibility goals and transparency. Some have been indifferent about it, some actually stating that people with disabilities are not their targeted audience (that response irritates me so much!), while other acknowledge their pitfalls and are actively trying to address it. I stay clear of those companies that have nothing in place for accessibility because they are telling me that people like my son don’t matter or need to be represented.
When evaluating apps or web 2.0 tools with the checklist, it is important to see how they fare from a creator point of view as well as a student point of view. For example, Playposit is a great video tool you can use with your students. From the student perspective, it scores high for accessibility( captions allowed , can add captions, player can be used by keyboard, questions embedded can be read by screen readers). From the instructor perspective, however, it is less accessible. For example, creating the video lesson requires using a click and drag interface and is cannot be navigated using only a keyboard.
It is also worth stating that it is rare to find a Web 2.0 tool that gets all the points on the checklist. The top two Web 2.0 tools that I have scored almost a perfect score on the checklist have been Book Creator and Flipgrid, so far. The list keeps growing and growing though and there are plenty that are off to a good start.
So, be aware of the plus and minuses of the web 2.0 tools you use with your students and have alternatives ready if a student is not able to engage with or use the tool. Remember it isn’t about the tool, it is about the content. Knowing this information helps you customize how you interact with your audience.
Until next year at the café……