LSC 555 Spring 2013 Blog 5 Web Accessibility and Web 2.0 4/13/13
Linda Gwinn-Casey
And
the King will answer them, “I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of
the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.” Matthew 25:40
Universal
Design is a growing
field; one which seeks to provide access to physical spaces as well as the
information world for all users, including those who have a disability. As a society, we have a legal, ethical, and
moral obligation to do so. As parents, community
members, educators, and librarians it is incumbent upon us to do so. Specifically, “Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation
Act requires federal government Web sites to be made accessible to people
with disabilities” (Brophy, P. & Craven, J., 2007).
In LSC 555 Week 11 readings, the concept of Web Access was covered in relation to
users who primarily are visually impaired or blind, whose primary obstacles to
Web access are the lack of voice-over and ALT text on images to convey meaning (Brophy,
P. & Craven, J., 2007). Authors
Brophy and Craven encourage designers to incorporate UD principles into Web
page design by incorporating good interface and checkpoints, such as text for
non-text entries, effective color combinations, the ability to freeze content,
avoidance of pop-ups, provision of skip-navigation links, division of a page
into groups, identification of links and use of clearly expressed language
(Brophy, P. & Craven, J., 2007).
In “Making the Right Decisions about Assistive
Technology in Your Library”, author Christopher S. Gruder identified that “54% of adults with a disability use the
computer” (Guder, 2012, p.15) and that one must consider how the assistive
technology will be shared, licensed to one or several computers, to a
network, or to many sites through a
USB. Guder identified several aspects of
Assistive Technologies and examples
of each:
Screen Reading Technology-JAWS uses keystrokes, converts text
to speech or Braille, mouse/monitor not needed;
Magnifying Technology-Zoom Text magnifier, converts text
to sound, purchase on USB, enlarges text to screen, user controls;
Literacy Software-Read and Write GOLD, Kurzweil 1000,
3000-dictioanries word predictors, translators, highlighters, speech input and
applications for voice command;
Speech Recognition-uses a voice to create documents,
navigate web pages;
and Peripheral modifications such as
headsets, speakers, microphones.
After all, someone we care for could
become one in the “54% of adults with a disability to use the computer” (Guder,
2012, p.15).
Brophy,
P.& Craven, J. (2007). Web
accessibility . Library Trends.
55(4)950-972.
Gruder. (2012). Making the Right Decisions about Assistive
Technology in Your Library. Library Technology Reports, 48(7), 14-21.
NET Bible
(2006) http://bible.cc/matthew/25-40.htm Accessed 4/12/13.
Web 2.0
In “Web 2.0 Features in University
Library Web Sites”, authors N.S. Harinarayana and N. Vasantha Raju looked at libraries and how
they adopted and adapted what is referred to 2.0 technologies within university
libraries. The authors offered a brief
review of terminology. Ian Davis is
credited as stating, “Web 1.0 took
people to the information; Web 2.0 will take information to the people” (Harinarayana, N.S. & Raju, V. 2010,
p.69). Tim O’Reilly is credited with the
neologism of “Web 2.0”, utilizing
existing technologies in a socially interactive way and Michael Casey’s blog
librarycrunch is credited with the phrase “Library
2.0” , blending existing technologies in a socially interactive way within
library systems (Harinarayana, N.S. & Raju, N.V., 2010, p.69-70).
The authors conducted studies and
came to the conclusion that libraries tend to focus on implementing a small
number of Web 2.0 technologies and identified the incorporation of blogs and RSS feeds as popular choices (Harinarayana, N.S. & Raju, N.V.,
2010, p.76). The authors sited the growth of user-tagging systems within the
University of Pennsylvania Library, referred to as “PennTagg” in conjunction
with their OPAC system. The authors also
identified the potential for podcasts in library services, such as in story
time for children, information literacy and assistance, teen reviews, music
collections, audiobooks, events, databases, and training (Harinarayana, N.S.
& Raju, N.V., 2010, p.79).
Librarians must be wary of utilizing
Web 2.0 technologies, as author Nicholas Joint shared in “The Web 2.0 Challenge to Libraries”. Joint credits librarians as knowing what the
users like, but cautions librarians that there are complications in Library 2.0
as “you are mounting an institutional service on an external, non-institutional
server” and that “sharing of content must be clean, both technically and
legally” (Joint, 2009, p.171).
Librarians would be wise to apply their knowledge of copyright laws, to
establish safety protocol for user-sharing as in tagging, and to monitor Web
2.0 applications on a daily basis to avoid the posting of inappropriate
comments and/or images. Perhaps some
safeguards, such as having a librarian review tags prior to adding them would
give users the opportunity to share while maintaining ethical standards.
Sources:
Harinarayana, N.S., &Raju, N.V.
(2010). Web 2.0 features in university library web sites. The
Electronic Library, 28(1), 69-88.
Joint, N.
(2009). The web 2.0 challenge to libraries.
Library Review, 58(3), 167-175.
