I have been giving some further thought to the issue of the accessibility of
resources in institutional repositories. From a simple perspective, based
on seeking to comply with WAI WCAG 1.0 guidelines, PDF can be a bit of a
non-no (WCAG requires use of open W3C formats) and from a less prescriptive
perspective (e.g. the WCAG 2.0 draft guidelines are neutral regarding file
formats) there are still issues about whether the PDFs will be accessible.
However myself, David Sloan, Lawrie Phipps and others have argued for a more
holistic approach to accessibility, which is based on the notion of widening
participation and inclusion rather than the absolutist perspective
associated with the term 'universal accessibility'. This viewpoint is
described in more detail in:
Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility
Guidelines, <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/>
and Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for
Applying the WCAG in the Real World,
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/>
This approach can then be aligned with Steven Harnard's argument about the
need to maximise the number of resources held in institutional repositories
(something I'd agree with). However to comply with UK legal requirements,
there will be a need to take 'reasonable measures' to ensure the resources
can be made accessible. I think that this can be addressed by policies,
education and training, supported by better tools in the workflow process.
I've expanded on this at:
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/accessibility-and-institutional-r
epositories/
Comments welcome.
Brian
--------------------------------
Brian Kelly
UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44 1225 383943
|