Avoiding video avoidance - part 2
A pragmatic and risk-based approach to multimedia use.
Previously…
In the previous article I explored the challenge facing thousands of teaching staff daily. With limited time and resources, they want to make teaching as inclusive as possible. They want to go beyond chalk, talk and books to use multimedia. But they lack the skills, time, and technology to add 100% accurate captions and audio description to their video content. Technically, their lecture capture, laboratory practical videos or Maths and English worked examples fail the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). As a UK public sector organisation, they breach current website regulations. The two “unintended consequences” of this include:
- a retreat from 21st - century technology enhanced learning to 20th- century reliance on books and photocopied handouts – or...
- a blanket “disproportionate burden” claim used as an excuse to continue old and inaccessible practices.
The last article suggested accessibility improvements that any individual or organisation could progress along, even if they were unable to achieve 100% (WCAG) compliance. In this follow up, I want to explore the “risk environment” in which decisions take place and how institutions can use the risk profile to make intelligent decisions.
Back to basics – people first.
The European Web Accessibility Directive and the resultant national laws raised the profile of digital accessibility. It is vital legislation, but where elements of the legislation risk the unintended consequences outlined above, it is important to look beyond legislation alone.
Beyond legislation, we find people and their purposes. Who is creating content? What are they hoping to achieve? Who consumes the resources? What are their needs? How can they be most effectively met?
Taking a people-first approach is the safest way of maximising the benefits of videos and rich media whilst minimising barriers. A people-first approach means understanding the audience, the delivery context, the nature of the resource and the people creating it. With a people-first paradigm, it gets easier to unpick where the risks lie and what to do about them.
A risk-based approach.
For the purpose of this article, I’m defining risk in two ways –
- the risk of the content creating a barrier to a disabled-student’s progress,
- the risk of litigation from disadvantaged students.
The two are closely linked. It is difficult to imagine a court ruling against an institution where a disabled student suffered no disadvantage from “technically inaccessible” materials because alternative proactive support / resources had been provided. Indeed, disabled students can be disadvantaged by technically accessible materials that provide an unequal and inappropriate learning experience, given their disability.
Exploring delivery risks.
These examples are not intended to encourage people to do nothing. They are designed to encourage people to do “an achievable something”. A key point summary, a transcript, or automated speech-recognition (with attempts to maximise accuracy) are all better than nothing.
Low risk – audience type.
If the accessibility needs of the audience are known, it is easy to determine whether anyone is likely to be disadvantaged by a lack of 100% accurate captions or scene description. Traditional delivery contexts alert teaching staff to the specific needs of their learners. Even with more open delivery such as webinars, registration forms should include opportunities for people to declare access needs. Where no declared needs are present, the risk of anyone being disadvantaged by semi accessible content is reduced. Smaller audiences with direct access to support (from tutors or learning support teams) also reduce the risk of disadvantage. More modest – and sustainable - accessibility responses may be appropriate in these contexts.
Low risk - resource characteristics.
Where a video resource duplicates another format - a chapter in a book, or written handout - the risk of anyone being disadvantaged is reduced. Similarly, videos that are temporary, group specific or “optional extras” pose less risk if they are not fully accessible. A tutor may upload videos of her student fieldwork as an aide memoir for their revision. It’s not core to the teaching and she’ll delete them after the exam. There’s a low risk of disadvantaging anyone if she doesn’t meet WCAG standards.
High risk.
The larger, more unknown, or more unsupported the audience is, the higher the risk of partially accessible content creating a significant disadvantage for some learners. Equally, the risks rapidly increase where a video represents core content that is not available in another format. Resource longevity also matters. The tutor’s fieldwork videos (above) posed little risk. But if she integrates them into a key “fieldwork techniques” resource that all students study for the next 4 years the risk significantly rises.
Don’t forget the creator.
Within most education providers, different people create videos for different purposes. Teaching staff may record a lecture. Library teams introduce their e-book databases and library catalogues. The disability team discuss the services they offer. A senior manager contributes to the marketing video or provides a formal welcome on the website. All authors are not equal. To reduce risks, organisations need to document their policy and approach to video creation. Since risks vary with audience type and resource characteristics, the challenge is to ensure different members of staff understand the expectations appropriate to their role and training.
Conclusion.
Role-appropriate training is key to reducing risks. Such training needs to take account of job descriptions. Videos produced by full-time e-learning experts should reach high standards of WCAG compliance. Those produced by full time English teachers may not. Training, experience, job description and budget all need to feature in any disproportionate burden claim and in any accessibility roadmap for your organisation. This will make disproportionate burden claims more robust. But more importantly, you will create a culture focused on getting the most inclusive experience for as many people as possible by every practicable means.
More information
The holistic, pragmatic approach adopted in these articles is representative of the Accessibility Maturity Model for Education that I've been developing with AbilityNet. We're running online training on how to grow your accessibility maturity in an evidence based, holistic way that encourages a "can do" culture focused on people and learning rather than technical jargon. It also gives you ways of measuring - and badging - your progress.
I'm a lead author on some guidance the Digital Accessibility Working Group is currently putting together to publish via Jisc early in 2021. The Digital Accessibility Working Group is a UK sector group liaising with Government Digital Services to represent the particular challenges FE and HE organisations face in meeting web accessibility legislation. Look out for our guidance when it is finally published!