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.