Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 14 Using Tech (Video 1 (Everyone being involved benefits campus,…
Chapter 14 Using Tech
Video 1
Everyone being involved benefits campus, new ideas and perspectives.
Social conscoius quote
Spirit of education for all is part of accessibility,pride in providing accessibility.
-
-
-
-
Accessibility needs to be open and available automatically students will not need to go somewhere to get accomodations. Universability is good for all learners.
Good design is less expensive if embraced from the start compared to retrofitting accessibility
.Think through the issues comprehensively, strategically hold down costs and results in better service in long run.
-
Shared governance process those responsible for implementation have a role in deciding how it will be implemented and rolled out.
Vendors, ensuring they are seen as partners in delivering accessible products or services. Pressure on vendors to create accessible products.
Work together rather than institution by institution - vendors are an important step. Market demands made by many will result in a change in accessibility tech and universal design.
Incentives
Greater the competition amongst orgs the greater the incentive to invest in skill andknowledge thatenhance survival, greater rate of inst change.
-
accessibility is a human right (HREOC 2002; Bohman 2003a), a disability rights (DRC 2004) and a civil rights issue (Waddell 1999), justice and rights on their own do not appear to be powerful enough reasons for most organizations to change their practices. An
‘The full and independent participation by people with disabilities in web-based communication and information delivery makes good business and marketing sense, as well as being consistent with our society’s obligations to remove discrimination and promote human rights’ (HREOC 2002).
Accessability from design increases market share Jacobs 2005, Microsoft (Haverty 2005; Perkins and Haverty 2005)., ed or made (Foley 2003b).
-
Benefit to target audiency may differ to that of those designing the intervention.Contribution article
Rules
Internal and external
External, stable guidlelies Chpt 4 Seale but precepts are ever changing as cases are being rukled on.
-
Formal and informal
Informal - general accepted in lit - accessibility needs to be addressed at the beginning of the design process
and not at the end as an afterthought (Gay et al. 1999; Katseva 2004);
• accessibility requires a user-centred approach (Luke 2002; Alexander
2003b);
• accessibility will benefit all students, not just those with disabilities (Jacko
and Hanson 2002; Thompson 2005).
More specifically - the different approaches to inclusive and holistic curriculum design that
lecturers should adopt (see chapter 6);
• the different adaptations of accessibility guidelines that learning technologists
should adopt (see chapter 7);
• the different ways in which student support services should be structured
(see chapter 8);
• the different strategies and models that staff development services should
adopt (see chapter 9);
• the different emphasis that different senior managers place on the
flexibility or rigidity of their technology procurement procedures (see
chapter 10).
-
Enforcers
t rules are enforced by self-imposed codes of conduct (first
party), retaliation from a second party or sanctions/coercive enforcement by
the state (third party). Evidence for first-party and second-party enforcement
of accessibility rules is currently very thin. In the public domain, there is
no record of anyone who works in higher education being sacked, demoted
or reprimanded for failing to follow accessibility rules (formal or informal).
Conversely, practice that does follow the rules is not openly rewarded or
celebrated. Most organizations do not yet appear to have a detailed and
structured mechanism for auditing compliance with accessibility rules. The
nearest an organization appears to get to stating the consequences of noncompliance
with accessibility rules is to indicate that inaccessible material will
be removed and taken off-line (see chapter 10).
Third party enforcement - not clerly happening. Many waiting for case law to find out what reasonable adjustments are. Talk of out of court settlements result- chinese whispers of what the rulesmean.
Politics
Disability discrimination and accessibility issues are frequently introduced
to higher education institutions as primarily a legal issue (as opposed to an
issue of equity, inclusion or social justice). At a higher education institution
level, legislation is therefore frequently seen as the main driver for accessibility
(Phipps et al. 2004) and accessibility is therefore presented as being
about compliance with legal rules and the potential enforcement of those
rules (McCarthy 2001; Wilder 2002).
Therefore - need model that explores effect of rules on responses and what mediates these responses.
North’s institutional change framework, choice was subject to constraints, including competition, conflict and friction. Konur (2000) used this theory.
What are the formal and informal rules of accessibility?
• Is the development of accessibility practices within higher education
institutions influenced by the differences between the formal and informal
rules of accessibility?
• To what extent are the formal and informal rules regarding accessibility
being enforced by first, second and third parties?
• How are the formal and informal rules of accessibility being regulated
and enforced within a higher education institution?
• Are institutions seeing accessibility rules as an opportunity to invest in
knowledge and skills required to make e-learning accessible?
• What incentive is there for institutions to invest in the knowledge and
skills required to make e-learning accessible?
-
-
-