Browsing some resources on the very useful TechDis website I found some very interesting reading on holistic approaches to e-learning accessibility. In Developing a Holistic Approach for E-Learning Accessibility the authors present a realistic view of e-learning activity and discuss both technical and pedagogic issues, arriving at a pragmatic solution that addresses usability and the learner experience in conjunction with the usual 'checklist' approach to meeting Accessibility standards. Their model goes beyond reliance on W3C guidelines with Learner Needs at the centre and Quality Assurance encircling all relevant factors - harder to implement but arguably more effective and sustainable.
A more recent paper, Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes extends this approach to combine a 'Tangram model' (using a set of pieces to create any suitable outcome) and a Stakeholder model (built on collaboration and contextualisation). There is a useful description of 'Accessibility 2.0' as a concept and the 'step-change' in its characteristics; for example moving from "Focus on digital resources themselves" to "Focus on purpose of the resources" and "Popularity of automated testing tools" to "Verification of policies and processes". These proposals will require significant investment in user awareness and training, advocacy and policy development but represent an interesting and creative approach.
As an aside, I liked the comparison to a real-world example of how to make the learner experience of a geography fieldtrip in inaccessible terrain accessible to all:
"A blinkered approach would be to seek to make the mountain accessible by building a ramp or by cancelling the field trip for everybody". (Kelly, Phipps and Swift)
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Friday, 6 July 2007
Ecologies and ecosystems
A draft report from the Repositories Research Team (a collaboration between UKOLN and JISCCETIS), "An ecological approach to repository and service interactions" has been published for consultation. It uses metaphors from ecology to represent the interactions between repositories and services, and in this way does provide a useful conceptual mapping at a high level by tapping into existing frames of reference. Basically - considering all factors (human as well as technical) and different perspectives is crucial. In TrustDR we describe that simply as a systematic or holistic approach.
I like the way this approach can provide a useful store of arguments, definitions, explanations etc. for communicating about repositories - for example using 'Biodiversity' to describe how healthy systems thrive with a range of services and are not dependent on single solutions or proprietary technologies; or describing the impact of 'environmental factors' such as OA mandates.
Where I begin to have a problem, is the report's claim that "Ecology offers a neutral metaphor". Not all its terminology is 'neutral' in terms of the concepts it portrays. For example, using parallels with food chains to describe the 'consumption' of data doesn't account for the fact that data is not depleted in the same way as food. This can lead to the same sort of reactions to terms like Intellectual Property which conjures up notions of 'my stuff' and comparisons to physical property, even though a nuanced definition can frame it as a nonrivalrous resource (ie. your use does not rival mine), and accompanying IP laws that balance incentives to create with public rights of access rather than being a system of perfect control for rights holders.
On reflection, it is just this kind of reaction that approaches such as this are designed to provoke - at least it gets us communicating and perhaps re-examining our concepts. However, I do wonder how many reference models we can usefully employ without seriously muddying the waters (or pond?).
The report describes several other uses of the ecology metaphor, and I would add another where the authors have used an ecosystem model to describe all the factors of DRM in relation to education. In this case there is no attempt to map every concept, but simply draws on our notion of an ecosystem to present their case.
I like the way this approach can provide a useful store of arguments, definitions, explanations etc. for communicating about repositories - for example using 'Biodiversity' to describe how healthy systems thrive with a range of services and are not dependent on single solutions or proprietary technologies; or describing the impact of 'environmental factors' such as OA mandates.
Where I begin to have a problem, is the report's claim that "Ecology offers a neutral metaphor". Not all its terminology is 'neutral' in terms of the concepts it portrays. For example, using parallels with food chains to describe the 'consumption' of data doesn't account for the fact that data is not depleted in the same way as food. This can lead to the same sort of reactions to terms like Intellectual Property which conjures up notions of 'my stuff' and comparisons to physical property, even though a nuanced definition can frame it as a nonrivalrous resource (ie. your use does not rival mine), and accompanying IP laws that balance incentives to create with public rights of access rather than being a system of perfect control for rights holders.
On reflection, it is just this kind of reaction that approaches such as this are designed to provoke - at least it gets us communicating and perhaps re-examining our concepts. However, I do wonder how many reference models we can usefully employ without seriously muddying the waters (or pond?).
The report describes several other uses of the ecology metaphor, and I would add another where the authors have used an ecosystem model to describe all the factors of DRM in relation to education. In this case there is no attempt to map every concept, but simply draws on our notion of an ecosystem to present their case.
Monday, 2 July 2007
Formal/informal sharing
Some interesting discussions took place at the recent joint meeting of the JISC CETIS Metadata and Digital Repositories/Educational Content SIGs which was investigating new ways of sharing content. Technologies seem to fall into 2 categories - conventional or disruptive.
Conventional types are managed and controlled by institutions, such as VLEs, and its interesting that Learning Object Repositories are classed as conventional when there's still very little activity embedded in institutions. Disruptive technologies would be things like RSS, perhaps with the addition of Yahoo Pipes to filter and combine feeds from various sources. This is seen as empowering for individuals, handing control over to their workspace.
Several speakers highlighted the need for both approaches, with institutions providing authorotative sources and quality metadata while allowing users the freedom to use content where they feel comfortable. However there are still issues about the need to monitor, assess or archive students' work, which can't be done through flickr!! Also, institutions may need to track use of technology simply to be able to decide whether to keep on providing resources to support it. If a repository merely provides the backend through which users find content but never really 'visit', the arguments to support it become more intangible. We need to find ways of ensuring the value of managed technology services is still recognised.
Conventional types are managed and controlled by institutions, such as VLEs, and its interesting that Learning Object Repositories are classed as conventional when there's still very little activity embedded in institutions. Disruptive technologies would be things like RSS, perhaps with the addition of Yahoo Pipes to filter and combine feeds from various sources. This is seen as empowering for individuals, handing control over to their workspace.
Several speakers highlighted the need for both approaches, with institutions providing authorotative sources and quality metadata while allowing users the freedom to use content where they feel comfortable. However there are still issues about the need to monitor, assess or archive students' work, which can't be done through flickr!! Also, institutions may need to track use of technology simply to be able to decide whether to keep on providing resources to support it. If a repository merely provides the backend through which users find content but never really 'visit', the arguments to support it become more intangible. We need to find ways of ensuring the value of managed technology services is still recognised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
