Providing Access to Students with Disabilities in Online Distance Education:
Legal, Technical, and Practical Considerations
Curtis D. Edmonds, J.D.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Online distance education is becoming increasingly prevalent, but many students
with disabilities experience barriers to online education. Many stakeholders are
unaware of potential electronic barriers to access, do not know the legal
responsibility to provide access for students with disabilities, and are not
familiar with the methods and resources needed to improve access to distance
learning programs. This limits the courses available to students with
disabilities, and impacts the quality of overall learning.
Introduction: Electronic Barriers to Students with Disabilities in Distance
Learning
Prevalence of Distance Learning
In 1998-1999, the National Center on Educational Statistics conducted a
comprehensive study of distance education programs in institutes of higher
education. This study found that distance education is rapidly becoming more and
more prevalent in both two-year and four-year institutions. Approximately one-
third of all institutions surveyed offered distance education courses, and an
additional fifth planned to add courses in the near future (Lewis, Snow, Farris
and Levin, 1999). Figure 1 illustrates the data from this survey:
Figure 1: Institutions Offering or Planning to Offer Distance Education, 1997-
1998.
Overall, approximately 1.6 million students were enrolled in distance learning
courses in 1997-1998. Approximately 1.3 million of these students were taking
courses for credit. These students were enrolled in approximately 54,000
courses, and slightly fewer than 50,000 of these courses were offered for
credit. Eight percent of all institutions surveyed offered complete degree
programs available through distance education degree programs, with a total of
1,230 programs being offered through distance education (Lewis, 1999).
The means by which institutions offer distance education is also changing, in
response to new developments in technology. As of the survey date of 1998-99,
many institutions were still using two-way interactive video or one-way
prerecorded video for distance education. However, the use of asynchronous
online distance learning tripled from 1995 to 1998, and institutions that
reported plans to offer future distance education offerings indicated that they
were looking towards increasing their use of the Internet (Lewis, 1999).
Although nationwide data are not yet available for the growth of online distance
education options since 1999, the growth of distance education in the state of
Oregon indicates that more and more courses are being offered in an online
format. The Oregon University System reports that there were 3,170 students
enrolled in 222 computer-based courses in 1998-1999. In 2001-2002, the most
recent year for which statistics are available, there were 14,206 students
enrolled in 1,436 courses. This represents an almost 350% increase in the number
of students and an almost 550% increase in the number of courses. As a result of
this increase in the number of online distance education courses, Oregon
students are able to take a more diverse course load, add flexibility to their
schedules, and to take courses that cater to the learning styles of the
individual student. (Oregon University System, 2001).
Barriers to Participation for Students with Disabilities
Distance learning is an increasingly popular way for institutions of higher
learning to deliver educational services to students. It is popular among
students with disabilities as well; a Department of Education study found that
27.6% of students with disabilities surveyed were more satisfied with distance
learning than online learning, compared to 22.1% of their nondisabled
counterparts (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). However,
distance education is also increasingly inaccessible to people with
disabilities. The design of many distance learning courses offered by
institutions of higher learning erects barriers to the full participation of
students and instructors with some types of disabilities (Burgstahler, 2002).
One main concern is the integration of existing information technology with
assistive technology devices utilized by people with disabilities. The federal
government defines an assistive technology device as "any item, piece of
equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or
customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional
capabilities of individuals with disabilities" (29 United States Code §
3002(a)(3), 2000). Assistive technology use is widespread; the Assistivetech.net
project (http://www.assistivetech.net/) at the Georgia Institute of Technology
lists thousands of different devices in its online database, such as screen-
reading software, speech-activated devices, specially adapted keyboards, and
magnification tools. A 1994 National Center for Health Statistics study revealed
that over 16 million Americans used some form of assistive technology (National
Center for Health Statistics, 1994). However, there is no reliable source of
information regarding the number of people using assistive technology, and as
more and more technology becomes available at a rapid pace, the available
information about persons who use assistive technology becomes quickly outdated
(Carlson, 2001).
Although assistive technology for people with disabilities is prevalent,
assistive technology alone does not remove all access barriers for students with
disabilities in distance education. Distance education courses that are designed
without planning for students who use assistive technology can result in
barriers for those students. Poorly designed distance education courses can
result in students with disabilities not being able to participate equally in
academics or in career preparation (Burgstahler, 2002). Different strategies are
needed to accommodate students with different disability types who use different
types of information technology. Figure 2 illustrates the potential needs of
students with varying types of disabilities, the potential barriers they face to
distance education, and potential solutions that educators can use to ensure
that students with disabilities have equal access to online distance education.
Figure 2: Access to Electronic & Information Technology by Students with
Disabilities
Disability Type
Assistive Technologies
Barrier(s)
Solution
Students who are blind
Use assistive technologies to access online services through screen reading
software (JAWS, WindowEyes, Home Page Reader) or Braille refreshable display
Inability to access graphical information on Internet sites, difficulty in
accessing formats such as Adobe PDF and Microsoft PowerPoint
Provide a text equivalent (alt tag) for every non-text element
Students with other visual impairments
May use other forms of assistive technology to access distance learning such as
software that magnifies the screen
Difficulty reading tables and charts
Inability to make sense of pages when magnified
Design internet sites using relative rather than absolute values for width and
height of rows and columns and images
Students with learning disabilities
May use speech output and/or screen enlargement system
May have difficulty understanding web sites when info is cluttered and when
screen layout changes from one page to the next
Designing accessible web pages results in better design for all
Students with mobility impairments
May use trackballs and other devices if keyboard access is an issue
May not be able to respond to pages such as online quizzes that call for a timed
response
May have difficulty navigating pages with repetitive links
Allow users to adjust the timing of responses
Allow users to skip repetitive links
Students with photosensitive seizure disorders (e.g., epilepsy)
Not generally needed
Sites with flickering images and text may trigger seizures
Avoid use of flickering elements
Students with hearing impairments
May use captioning features on multimedia players like Windows Media Player or
Real Audio
Unable to hear multimedia presentations that use sound, such as recorded
lectures
Multimedia presentations must be captioned
Benefits of Accessible Online Instruction
Designing online Internet-based courses that are accessible to all students,
including students with disabilities, results in courses that are easier to use
and understand for everyone (Nielsen, J. 2000). For example, accessible online
courses that have alternative text included allow students to search for key
words and phrases. Captioned videos may help students that are taking courses
from a professor who does not have good English language skills. Accessible
courses are more compatible with second-generation browsing devices, such as
wireless handheld computers. As institutes of higher learning serve increasingly
diverse populations, including individuals for whom English is a second
language, having additional textual content in distance learning courses may
help such students succeed academically. Additionally, creating online courses
that are accessible is much easier than retrofitting courses to provide access
once a person with a disability enrolls in the course or applies to teach it
(Burgstahler, 2002).
Instructors with disabilities can also benefit from accessible online distance
education. For example, Dr. G. Denise Lance, an online instructor with cerebral
palsy, reports that accessible online education allows her to keep her
disability hidden if she chooses. Additionally, it allows her to communicate
with students more effectively, and answer more questions from students (Lance,
2002).
Legal Considerations: Requirements for Access to Online Distance Learning
The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has wide-ranging application
to colleges and universities. Title II of the ADA, which applies to public
entities such as public colleges and universities, provides that "no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded
from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or
activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity" (42 United States Code 12132, 1990). The ADA's implementing regulations
require a public entity to "make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can
demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature
of the services, program, or activity" (28 Code of Federal Regulations §
35.130(b)(7), 1991).
Title III of the ADA, which applies to "places of public accommodation",
including private colleges and universities, provides that "No individual shall
be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns,
leases (or leases to) or operates a public accommodation" (42 United States Code
§ 12182(a), 1990). Both the Title II and Title III regulations require that
communication with people with disabilities be as effective as communication
with others. (28 Code of Federal Regulations § 35.160, 1990; 28 Code of Federal
Regulations § 36.302(a), 1990).
The ADA was passed in 1990, well before the Internet was in widespread use. In
fact, commercial use of the Internet was prohibited until 1991 (Lee, 2000). As a
result, the ADA and its implementing regulations contain no information about
online accessibility, or any standards governing the accessibility of Internet
pages. However, a Department of Justice letter opinion states that "covered
entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication,
regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio
media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the
Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be
prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well"
(Patrick, 1996).
In an amicus brief filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, the Department of Justice argued that the ADA does have application to
the Internet, finding that the "language of the statute is broad enough to cover
services provided over this new medium" (Lee, 2000). The brief addressed the
argument that the ADA should not apply to the Internet because the Internet is
not a "place" of public accommodation. "Even if the district court's holding
were somehow restricted to companies that provide services solely outside the
context of their physical buildings," the brief stated, "this would still leave
a significant array of service providers free to discriminate. For example,
those selling car insurance over the telephone would be free to hang up on blind
customers, Publisher's Clearing House could refuse to sell magazines through the
mail to people with HIV, and colleges could refuse to enroll the deaf in their
correspondence courses. Again, these are businesses Congress clearly intended to
cover" (Lee, 2000).
In 1998, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education
concluded a complaint investigation against the California community college
system. OCR surveyed all 110 campuses and had on-site visits to twenty campuses
as part of an investigation of technology-related disability access issues. As
part of an agreement to close the investigation, the system agreed to purchase
adaptive technology for students with disabilities, to provide training to
community college staff, and to ensure that all distance education offered
through the California Virtual University program met the guidelines developed
by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (Rosenzweig, 1998). Subsequently, the
system adopted its own standards for accessibility in distance education
(California Community Colleges, 1999).
One federal court has ruled that an inaccessible Internet site of a public
entity can contribute to a violation of the ADA. In a case against the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) alleging multiple ADA
violations, a federal district court judge found that the MARTA website was
inaccessible to people with disabilities and that the system violated a
provision of Title II of the ADA requiring that transit agencies make
information available in accessible formats. "MARTA representatives also concede
that the system's web page is not formatted in such a way that it can be read by
persons who are blind but who are capable of using text reader computer software
for the visually impaired. However, it now appears that MARTA is attempting to
correct this problem," the court ruled. "Until these deficiencies are corrected,
MARTA is violating the ADA" (Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transportation
Authority, 2002). However, another federal court dismissed a Title III challenge
against an inaccessible airline website on the grounds that the website was not
a place of public accommodation (Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
2002).
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
The 1998 amendements to the Rehabilitation Act provide that Federal departments
or agencies must ensure, absent an undue burden, that the electronic and
information technology they acquire is accessible to individuals with
disabilities who are Federal employees or who are members of the public seeking
information or services from a Federal department or agency (29 United States
Code § 794d, 1998). In order to implement this law, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, a federal agency, drafted standards
for information software accessibility (36 Code of Federal Regulations § 1194,
2000).
The Section 508 web access standards are fairly easy to use and understand.
Several online tools are available to evaluate websites for compliance with
these standards; many of them are available for free. Additionally, software
programs such as A-Prompt (http://www.aprompt.ca/) and Bobby
(https://www.elicense.com/watchfire/store/index.asp) are available to help users
evaluate websites. The Section 508 Internet standards, along with links to the
various online tools, are summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Section 508 Standards, Tools and Techniques
Standard
Suggested Tool or Technique
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via
"alt", "longdesc", or in element content).
Use the WAVE online accessibility tool developed by Temple University
(http://www.temple.edu/instituteondisabilities/piat/wave/) to check whether all
images are accompanied by an appropriate alt-tag.
(b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be
synchronized with the presentation.
Use the MAGpie Media Access Generator developed by the National Center for
Accessible Media (http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie/) to add captions to
multimedia files.
(c) Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is
also available without color, for example from context or markup.
Use the Lynx Viewer developed by Delorie Software
(http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html) to view your site in a text-only
format.
(d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet.
Turn off style sheets in your browser, or download an older browser that does
not support style sheets.
(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-
side image map.
Use Lynx Viewer to check whether all the links provided on image map appear as
text within the document.
(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps
except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.
Avoid server-side image maps whenever possible.
Standard
Suggested Tool or Technique
(g) Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables.
Use the Bobby validator developed by Watchfire
(http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp) to identify potential
problems, then check manually.
(h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data
tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers.
Use Bobby to identify potential problems, then check manually.
(i) Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and
navigation.
Use Bobby to check for presence of frame titles; ensure that frame titles are
appropriate.
(j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a
frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
Check manually; use the screen flickering demonstration developed by the
National Center for Accessible Media
(http://ncam.wgbh.org/richmedia/flicker_demo.html) as a guideline. WARNING: DO
NOT USE THIS LINK IF YOU HAVE PHOTOESENSITIVE EPILEPSY.
(k) A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be
provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when
compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only
page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.
If the page as designed cannot be retrofitted to meet the Section 508 standards,
consider designing a text-only page. Most pages can be made accessible with a
little effort. Text-only pages are discouraged because they often are not
updated as often as other pages.
(l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create
interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identified
with functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
Use Lynx Viewer to see the page in a text-only format with scripts disabled. Use
the NOSCRIPT tag to add in text content for people who cannot access scripts.
(m) When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be
present on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a
link to a plug-in or applet that complies with ß1194.21(a) through (l).
For example, if your page has a link to an Adobe PDF document, provide a link
download the Adobe Acrobat reader.
(n) When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form shall
allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field
elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form,
including all directions and cues.
Use Bobby to check accessibility of forms. Consider adding default, place-
holding characters in edit boxes and text areas.
(o) A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation
links.
Use Lynx Viewer to check for presence and placement of skip-navigation links.
See the Digital Media Access Group (http://www.dmag.org.uk/resources/
design_articles/skip.asp) page for an example of building a skip-navigation
link.
(p) When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given
sufficient time to indicate more time is required.
If your page requires timed responses, consider testing the page using assistive
technology, like a virtual keyboard, or by tapping the keyboard with a pencil.
By its terms, Section 508 only applies to programs and services of the federal
government. However, officials at the U.S. Department of Education authored a
letter in 1999 indicating that they interpreted Section 508 to have application
to state entities, including some public colleges and universities. The letter
stated that the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 required that states receiving
grants under this law must continue to abide by the assurances provided during
the initial grant program created under the Technology-Related Assistance for
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988. That law required states to submit
assurances that the State would comply with Section 508. As a result, the
Department of Education stated that "states that receive ATAct funding must
continue to comply with the requirements of Section 508 by ensuring that their
electronic and information technology is accessible. This includes compliance
with the standards to be issued and published by the Access Board" (Heumann,
1999).
This administrative interpretation has not yet been adopted by a federal court.
However, colleges and universities may choose to adopt Section 508 as part of
their Internet access policies. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison
(UWM) adopted Section 508 as part of its web accessibility standards, both for
newly designed pages and "legacy" pages designed before 2001 (University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 2001).
Although, as stated earlier, there are no standards under the ADA for Internet
accessibility, universities like UWM that adopt Section 508 policies voluntarily
will likely be able to show that they are complying with the accessibility
requirements of the ADA.
State Laws
Several states have passed laws similar to Section 508. These laws vary in their
scope and application. Some of them apply to state agencies, while others have
wider applications to state universities. Faculty and staff members at public
colleges and universities should be aware of the laws that may apply in their
states. The Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North
America (RESNA) compiled a list of state policy and legal initiatives
(http://www.resna.org/taproject/policy/initiatives/508/508Stateactions.htm).
Figure 4 lists citations and summaries of selected state laws and regulations.
Figure 4: Selected State Laws and Regulations Concerning Electronic Access for
People with Disabilities
State
Citation
Summary
Arkansas
Arkansas Code §25-26-206
Requires that any state or state-assisted organization ensure that information
technology equipment or software be accessible to individuals with visual
impairments. Implements technology access clause for state contracts.
California
California Government Code § 11135(d)
Requires state government entities to comply with Section 508. Requires entities
that contract with state or local entities to resolve complaints on
accessibility.
Connecticut
None
Adopted W3C guidelines as part of policy for state agency websites
(http://www.cmac.state.ct.us/access/).
Indiana
Indiana Code Annotated § 4-23-16-12
Requires state information technology commission to appoint a group, including
representation from people with disabilities, to develop statewide standards
modeled on Section 508.
Kentucky
Kentucky Revised Statutes § 61.980
Requires state entities and state-assisted entities, including universities and
schools, to provide equivalent access to information technology for students
with disabilities.
Louisiana
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 39:301
Creates an advisory council for the state's chief information officer to provide
input on accessibility issues for people with disabilities.
State
Citation
Summary
Maine
None
Adopted policy for state agency websites based on the W3C guidelines
(http://www.state.me.us/CIO/accessibility/webpolicy.html).
Maryland
Maryland Education Code Annotated § 7-910
Requires that technology-based instructional products purchased by Maryland
public school systems meet Section 508 requirements.
Massachusetts
None
Adopted standards for state agency websites based on the W3C guidelines
(http://www.state.ma.us/itd/spg/publications/standards/web-access-std.htm).
Minnesota
None
Adopted guidelines for state agency websites
(http://www.admin.state.mn.us/accessibility_guidelines.html).
New York
None
Adopted W3C guidelines as part of policy for state agency websites
(http://www.oft.state.ny.us/policy/99-3.htm).
North Carolina
North Carolina General Statues § 168A-7
Requires public entities, including educational entities, to make reasonable
aids and adaptations to their programs and services to accommodate people with
disabilities, including services provided through information technology.
North Dakota
None
Adopted W3C guidelnesas part of policy for state agency websites
(http://www.state.nd.us/itd/planning/standards-policies/policies/approved/data-
proc/dp005-01.doc).
Texas
Texas Government Code § 2001.007
Requires that state agency websites conform to generally accepted standards for
accessibility for people with disabilities. Developed accessibility standards
for state agency websites (http://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/S201-12.htm)
Washington
None
Guidelines encourage state agencies to follow W3C criteria
(http://www.wa.gov/dis/portfolio/webguidelines.htm).
West Virginia
West Virginia Code § 18-10N
Requires state department of administration to develop standards for
accessibility of state agency websites and technology purchased by the state.
Included access as part of overall strategy
(http://www.state.wv.us/got/eportal.asp)
Technical Considerations: First and Second-Generation Access Issues
Prevalence of Access Errors on University HTML Pages
Generally, pages on the Internet are presented in HyperText Markup Language
(HTML). Two major research studies have looked specifically at HTML access
issues in distance education (Rowland, 2000 and Schmetzke, 2002). Both
researchers used the "Bobby" web accessibility validator
(http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp). Bobby allows for fast,
automated checking of accessibility for HTML pages. Its most current version
checks for compliance against the Section 508 standards and the W3C guidelines
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/). Bobby is "not a perfect
tool"; it requires users to perform manual checks and can return both false-
positive and false-negative responses to an inquiry. However, it is well suited
to accessibility testing (Schmetzke, 2002).
Dr. Rowland's study revealed that only 24% of the 124 web pages of distance
education providers checked in a random sample passed the Bobby validation test.
This tracked with an earlier study that showed a similar level of access
problems in the front pages of colleges and universities. "It is apparent,"
writes Dr. Rowland, "that the current national snapshot of accessibility to
postsecondary Web sites is horrible" (Rowland, 2000).
Dr. Schmetzke's study looked at two sets of pages: university-based distance
learning pages and the pages of distance-learning organizations. In the first
set, only 15.1% of the 219 home pages of distance learning providers were found
to be accessible by the Bobby validator. A more comprehensive look at pages
linked to the home page showed that only 23.3% of the 3,366 pages surveyed
passed Bobby. 81% of the errors involved images presented without alternative
text. Additionally, "the web pages of distance-education organizations were not
paragons of virtue, either," with only one out of 12 pages surveyed approved by
Bobby (Schmetzke, 2002).
Second-Generation Accessibility in Distance Learning
Using tools like Bobby and implementing policies based on the Section 508
standards or the W3C guidelines helps to ensure accessibility for students with
disabilities. However, because of the nature of distance learning, following
these standards may not be enough to ensure complete accessibility for students
with disabilities.
As distance learning has expanded, so has the market for courseware. Courseware
such as Blackboard or WebCT allows faculty and staff to present course materials
in an online course easily and simply. Courseware products enable faculty and
staff members who may not have experience in programming or authoring HTML code
to create courses that they might otherwise not have created. However, they
frequently present access barriers to students with disabilities. (Harrison,
1999)
Courseware products allow faculty members to include non-HTML elements within
online courses. Examples of such elements include online slideshows (using
software such as Microsoft PowerPoint), video presentations, animations,
spreadsheets, charts, tables, and documents (in formats such as Microsoft Word
or Adobe Portable Document Format). This provides a dual challenge to a faculty
member creating an accessible online course for students with disabilities. The
faculty member must first consider "first-generation" accessibility issues,
i.e., ensuring that the HTML structure of the page is accessible and meets
either Section 508 standards or the W3C guidelines. Next, the faculty member
must then consider "second-generation" access issues related to the online
accessibility of non-HTML elements.
"Second generation" accessibility is a much more difficult task for the
educator. Unlike "first generation" issues, there are few quick-and-easy online
tools available to evaluate the accessibility of "second generation" issues. In
many cases, the software used to develop the non-HTML elements may have
difficulty in turning out elements that are accessible. Additionally, the
responsibility for ensuring "first generation" accessibility is generally in the
hands of courseware developers or web designers. The responsibility for ensuring
"second generation" accessibility is generally in the hands of the faculty
member creating the course - i.e., someone without the technical background to
provide accessibility. Figure 5 provides information about commonly-used
elements in distance education, identifies difficulties that need to be
addressed by educators, and offers suggestions on achieving accessibility for
these elements.
Figure 5: "Second Generation" Access Issues in Distance Education
Element
Potential Barrier
Suggested Solution
Slide Presentations (Microsoft PowerPoint)
Online presentations utilize a JavaScript plug-in that presents slides as
graphic files not accessible to users who are blind; automatic conversion to
HTML results in non-508-compliant pages.
Convert PowerPoint slides to accessible HTML format; WebAim has tips and
suggestions on their website (http://www.webaim.org/ howto/powerpoint/).
Animations (Macromedia Flash, Java)
Video multimedia animations not generally accessible to people with sensory
disabilities; may require the use of a mouse to control.
Provide captioning or text equivalent for users who are deaf; audio-describe
animation for users who are blind. Newest version of Macromedia Flash contains
some accessibility features (http://www.macromedia.com/
macromedia/accessibility/).
Audio files
Issues for people with hearing disabilities
Provide captioning or text equivalent.
Element
Potential Barrier
Suggested Solution
Video Files (Windows Media Player, Real Audio)
Video files (such as lectures) pose access problems for people with sensory
disabilities
Provide captioning or text equivalent for sound; provide audio-description of
video. The free Media Access Generator (MAGpie) software is a good resource
(http://ncam.wgbh.org/ webaccess/magpie/).
Word Processing Documents (Microsoft Word, WordPerfect)
Documents may use color or highlighting to denote information, resulting in
difficulties for people with visual impairments; documents may include
inaccessible features such as images, charts, graphs and maps
Ensure that information can be conveyed without the use of color; provide text
equivalents for graphic elements.
Spreadsheets (Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft Excel)
Spreadsheets may include inaccessible charts or graphs
Provide text description of charts and graphs
Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF)
Some PDF files that are generated from original documents using scanners are not
compatible with screen-readers; documents presented in columns may not read
correctly; documents may contain inaccessible elements
Consider providing a text equivalent; test PDF files using the online tools at
the Adobe website (http://access.adobe.com/).
Whiteboards
Most whiteboard software not compatible with screen-readers
Consider providing textual or audio equivalent of whiteboard content.
Chat and Message Boards
Some software used for online chat rooms or message boards may not meet
accessibility standards
Consider using alternate accessible means of student discussion.
Case Study in Second-Generation Access Issues: Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentations generated by the Microsoft PowerPoint program are
increasingly common in both classroom settings and in distance education. In the
classroom, providing access to PowerPoint presentations could require an
instructor to read information on slides as they are projected so students with
visual impairments can have equivalent access to the information. In a distance-
learning environment, providing access to PowerPoint presentations requires a
little more thought, time and effort.
The first major issue is how PowerPoint files are presented online.
Individuals with disabilities who have access to a copy of the PowerPoint
software can download PowerPoint files included in a distance learning course
from a server and save them on their own computers. Students can then view the
files in their own copy of PowerPoint, taking advantage of the accessibility
options built into the program. However, individuals with disabilities who do
not own a copy of PowerPoint may have difficulty in accessing online
presentations.
One possible option is to download the free PowerPoint Viewer from
Microsoft (http://office.microsoft.com/downloads/2000/Ppview97.aspx). However,
the viewer presents PowerPoint slides as graphic files. A student with visual
disabilities would not be able to access any textual information embedded into
these graphic files. Another option would be to view the PowerPoint within a
window of a browser, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. However, the Java
plug-in that allows Internet Explorer to display PowerPoint slides also presents
the slides in an inaccessible graphical format.
Alternatives include exporting the PowerPoint file to another format, such
as HTML or PDF. PowerPoint allows for the automatic conversion of PowerPoint
presentation files to HTML. However, the HTML pages produced by this conversion
process presents access problems for people with disabilities. Generally,
PowerPoint automatically generates HTML pages that use five separate frames,
none of which have the appropriate title. The multiplicity of frames may make
the site hard to navigate for someone who does not use a mouse. Additionally,
the automatic process provides no way to skip repetitive navigation links.
The second major issue is how non-text elements are presented within PowerPoint
slides. Presentations may use a variety of charts, images and graphics to
portray information. Although PowerPoint does allow for users to associate
alternative text with elements, this alternative text does not appear in HTML
automatically. Not having textual equivalents means that a user with visual
impairments would not have access to that information.
One method of addressing both of these issues would be to transform a PowerPoint
presentation into an accessible HTML document. For individuals with a good basic
knowledge of PowerPoint and HTML coding, this is a relatively simple process.
First, a PowerPoint presentation can be saved as a series of graphic files in a
variety of formats (i.e., JPG, GIF, BMP). These files are then saved in a
separate folder. Second, save the presentation as a Rich Text Format document,
which will create a text-only version of the presentation. Third, copy that
text-only presentation into an HTML editor. Fourth, use the HTML editor to code
an HTML page that integrates the text content with the graphic content, and that
meets accessibility standards. An example of how a PowerPoint slide can be
displayed within an accessible HTML page is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Example of HTML Code for Simple PowerPoint Title Slide
Image
HTML Code
Creating Accessible PowerPoint Presentations
This is an example of a slide in an accessible PowerPoint presentation saved
in HTML format.
Note that this method presents both the slide as a graphic (for users who
are sighted) and as text (for users with visual impairments). If this slide
contained images, graphs, charts, maps, or other non-textual information, the
author of the presentation could add in descriptions of those elements in the
text. An author could also use a Cascading Style Sheet or other method to make
the text appear very small, or match the color of the text with the background
so that it would not appear to the sighted user but would be read by a screen-
reader. Additionally, presentations offered in an accessible HTML format are
easier to navigate than those presented in frames, and the presence of text
means that the file can be easily searched by users or by search engines.
Practical Considerations: A Demonstration Project to Remove Electronic Barriers
Project Background, Goals and Objectives
The Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education
recently approved a three-year grant for the Southeast Disability and Business
Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC) to develop cooperative strategies to remove
barriers to students with disabilities in online education.
The Southeast DBTAC is housed at the Center for Assistive Technology and
Environmental Access (CATEA), a center within the College of Architecture at the
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), a public four-year institute of
higher education located in Atlanta, Georgia. The Southeast DBTAC is one of ten
regional centers established by the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), under U.S. Department of Education Grant Number
H133D010207
. The Southeast DBTAC serves an eight-state region, including Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee,
and is responsible for promoting the need for accessible education-based
information technology (EduIT) in the Southeast Region. The Southeast DBTAC is
assisted in this endeavor by a 21-member Education Leadership Team comprised of
representatives of educational institutions throughout the Southeast Region.
The demonstration project involves three separate tracks. In each track, the
Southeast DBTAC will work with a different partner to improve access to distance
learning courses for students with disabilities. These tracks will enable the
Southeast DBTAC to improve access on the Georgia Tech campus as well as on a
nationwide basis. Additionally, these tracks will help to build the capacity of
faculty members and administrators, with and without disabilities, in planning
to provide accessible on-line education.
Track One - Professional Development
The first track will focus on the creation, evaluation, dissemination, and
marketing of a curriculum on accessibility issues in distance education. This
curriculum will be designed to improve the knowledge of faculty, staff,
administrators, and students, including people with disabilities, at Georgia
Tech and other institutes of higher learning nationwide. The objective of this
track is to increase the capacity of faculty and staff who use the curriculum to
provide accessible distance learning for students with disabilities on a
nationwide basis.
This curriculum will be developed by IDET Communications (IDET), an Atlanta-
based private company which is developing software and strategies to improve
access to distance learning. These modules will focus on the need to provide
access to students with disabilities, the necessary supports for all students
who are taking distance learning, accessibility issues in a number of software
types (such as PowerPoint, Word, Excel, Adobe PDF, and Flash) and the
integration of accessible elements into commonly used courseware.
The Southeast DBTAC will partner with IDET to provide a nationwide marketing and
outreach effort for the ten-module course. The Southeast DBTAC will participate
in the drafting of course materials and will review the course on an ongoing
basis to ensure that the course remains up-to-date as technology products
change. Additionally, the Southeast DBTAC will host the course on its fully
accessible Internet site and will provide additional technical assistance, on
request, to faculty members and administrators seeking to make their distance
learning programs more accessible to students with disabilities. Project staff
will also attend a variety of strategic conferences on education and technology
issues. The Southeast DBTAC will use these conferences as a way to market the
online course and distance learning materials, as well as to communicate and
network with other individuals, institutions and businesses working in this
area.
The Southeast DBTAC will work to create technical assistance materials, based on
information in the course, designed to provide a detailed summary of access
issues, solutions, and tips for improving access. These materials will be
permanently available on the Southeast DBTAC website.
The Southeast DBTAC will involve key faculty, staff and students at Georgia Tech
to evaluate the usefulness of this course and make suggestions for improvements.
A minimum of 6 faculty members and 4 students, including people with
disabilities, will participate in this initial training and evaluation process.
The Southeast DBTAC will pay stipends to the faculty and students involved.
Additionally, the Southeast DBTAC will establish a series of lunchtime
roundtable discussions on the Georgia Tech campus for faculty members, staff and
students, with and without disabilities, to share perspectives on access issues
in distance education. This program will promote accessibility and build better
relationships between faculty and students with disabilities. The Southeast
DBTAC will provide the course and the technical assistance material on a
nationwide basis via its Internet site. Faculty, staff and students at
institutes of higher education will have accessible, just-in-time access to this
resource to support their efforts to improve access.
In the third year of the project, the Southeast DBTAC will host a national
leadership institute on accessibility in distance education. This institute will
take place in Atlanta and will have speakers and presenters from around the
country. The institute will provide a valuable forum for stakeholders in
distance education to discuss accessibility issues.
As a result of this track, faculty and administrators across the country will
have access to a variety of professional development resources that detail
exactly how to create an accessible distance learning course. Faculty, staff and
students at Georgia Tech, with and without disabilities, will benefit from
increased collaboration and intensive professional development services.
Track Two - Barrier Removal at Georgia Tech
The second track will focus on removing barriers to online education at Georgia
Tech. It will involve partnerships with the Georgia Tech Center for Distance
Learning, the Center for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, and the Access
Disabled Assistance Program for Tech Students (ADAPTS).
The Center for Distance Learning has provided distance education options to
students outside the Georgia Tech campus for 75 years. Currently, it provides 23
courses over the Internet, mostly graduate-level courses in engineering. About
six to eight new graduate-level courses are made available each year.
Additionally, the Center for Distance Learning offers the only online masters-
level program in mechanical engineering in the nation.
The Southeast DBTAC will work with these stakeholders to make Georgia Tech a
model institution on accessibility to distance education. The goal of this track
is to increase the capacity of faculty and staff at Georgia Tech to provide
accessible distance learning for students with disabilities.
The Southeast DBTAC will work to retrofit an existing online distance learning
course as a model for complete accessibility. This course, relating to human
factors in engineering, presents a special challenge because of its complexity
and use of graphics and charts. This course will serve as a model of
accessibility for all online courses offered at Georgia Tech. The Southeast
DBTAC will partner with ADAPTS and Georgia Tech students with disabilities to
evaluate this model online course for accessibility. Students who have received
training in accessible online course design will make recommendations for
improvements. These students will gain experience in evaluating online courses
for accessibility and will have the tools needed to assist in surveying existing
courses.
The Southeast DBTAC will work with faculty and staff at the Center for Distance
Learning and Continuing Education and the Center for Enhancement of Teaching and
Learning to improve accessibility to online courses at Georgia Tech. The
Southeast DBTAC will provide funding to make a minimum of two courses accessible
in the second year and a minimum of two courses accessible in the third year of
the project. The Southeast DBTAC will provide ongoing technical assistance to
Georgia Tech faculty, staff and students, with and without disabilities, on
ensuring that distance education initiatives are fully accessible.
As a result of this track, access to distance education at Georgia Tech will be
improved through the identification and removal of barriers. Students with
disabilities will have enhanced knowledge to self-advocate for changes to
inaccessible materials. Faculty and administrators will have an enhanced
knowledge of potential barriers to distance learning for students with
disabilities.
Track Three - Promotion of Accessibility Through MERLOT Database
The third track will involve a partnership between the Southeast DBTAC and the
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT).
MERLOT is a collaborative project of the California State University system, the
University System of Georgia, the University of North Carolina system, the
Oklahoma State Regents, and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.
MERLOT is a free and open resource designed primarily for faculty and students
in higher education. MERLOT helps faculty enhance instruction with a continually
growing collection of online, reviewed learning material and assignments. MERLOT
is also a community of educators who strive to enrich teaching and learning.
MERLOT is a gateway to a national database containing web-based interactive
learning materials, assignments, reviews, and projects. MERLOT contains online
material across a variety of academic disciplines and provides peer-review of
learning materials submitted to the database.
First, the Southeast DBTAC will work with MERLOT to develop voluntary standards
for accessibility for distance learning. The MERLOT database currently does not
contain any information regarding the accessibility of the various learning
materials available. Several of the learning materials that are available are
not accessible. Faculty members who do not have a good knowledge of
accessibility issues may use these materials without realizing that students
with disabilities may not be able to take full advantage of them. The Southeast
DBTAC will work with MERLOT to develop voluntary standards for MERLOT members to
use when submitting material. These voluntary standards will be transmitted to
all MERLOT members, together with information about the online course and
technical assistance materials developed by the Southeast DBTAC.
As part of the peer-review process, the Southeast DBTAC will review existing
materials in the MERLOT database and evaluate them for access based on the
voluntary standards. This will ensure that information about whether a distance
learning element complies with these standards will be included in the MERLOT
database. Students with disabilities will be involved in this review and
evaluation process. The Southeast DBTAC will also contribute materials created
in the first two tracks to MERLOT as examples of accessible materials.
In its review of existing materials, the Southeast DBTAC will identify and
document promising practices in accessibility of online distance learning
materials. The Southeast DBTAC will report on promising accessibility practices
and will distribute information about learning materials that serve as models of
accessibility for other institutions. The Southeast DBTAC will provide detailed
technical assistance on the voluntary standards to MERLOT members who wish to
retrofit learning elements for accessibility.
As a result of this track, faculty members nationwide will have available
examples of existing accessible online courses and will be able to look up
accessibility information on existing distance learning elements.
Conclusion
Of all the potential barriers to accessibility for students with disabilities,
awareness of the problems continues to be the most significant. The more that
faculty members, staff, and distance learning specialists know about the
technical problems facing students with disabilities, their legal obligation to
remove barriers, and practical approaches to improving access, the more likely
it will be that barriers can be removed. The demonstration project currently
underway at the Southeast DBTAC should provide enhanced resources and technical
assistance products to help faculty members and university staff meet their
obligations.
References
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2002). United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-21734-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA. Retrieved
from LEXIS database at 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19795.
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Universal Design of Distance Learning, Information
Technology and Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/burgstahler.htm.
California Community Colleges (1999). Distance Education: Access Guidelines for
Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/dlguidelines /final%20dl%20guidelines.htm.
Carlson, D., Ehrlich, N., Berland, B., & Bailey, N. (2001). Assistive technology
survey results: Continued benefits and needs reported by Americans with
disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ncddr.org/du/researchexchange/v07n01/atpaper/.
Harrison, L. (1999). Accessible Web-based Distance Education: Principles and
Best Practices. Retrieved from
http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/rd/library/papers/accDistanceEducation.html.
Heumann, J. (1999). U.S. Department of Education, "Dear Colleague" letter.
Retrieved from
http://www.resna.org/taproject/policy/initiatives/nidrrassur.html.
Lance, G. (2002). Distance Learning and Disability: A View from the Instructor's
Side of the Virtual Lectern, Information Technology and Disabilities. Retrieved
from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/lance.htm.
Lee, B., Silver, J., & Russell, K. (2000). Hooks v. OKBridge, Inc., United
States Department of Justice (amicus brief). Retrieved from
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/hooks.htm.
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance Education at
Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-98, U.S. Department of Education,
National Center on Educational Statistics, NCES 2000-013. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000013.pdf.
Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (2002). United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 1:01-CV-
3255-TWT. Retrieved from
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/1001cv3255TWTinj.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics, 1999-2000 National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/table_library/tables/npsas23.asp.
National Center for Health Statistics (1994). Number of persons using assistive
technology devices by age of person and type of device: United States, 1994.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhis_dis/ad292tb1.htm.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. New
Riders Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Oregon University System (2002). Oregon University System Distance Education.
Retrieved from http://www.ous.edu/dist-learn/DEstats.htm.
Patrick, D. (1996). U.S. Department of Justice. Letter to Senator Tom Harkin.
Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt.
Rosenzweig, S. (1998). U.S. Department of Education. Letter to Chancellor
Thomas Nussbaum, California Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/offices /OCR/letters/caccres.html.
Rowland, C. (2000). Accessibility of the Internet in Postsecondary
Education: Meeting the Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.webaim.org/articles/whitepaper.
Schmetzke, A. (2002). Online Distance Education - "Anytime, Anywhere" But Not
For Everyone, Information Technology and Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv07n2/axel.htm.
University of Wisconsin-Madison (2001). Policy Governing World Wide Web
Accessibility. Retrieved from http://www.wisc.edu/wiscinfo/policy/wwwap.html.