Inclusive OER

Jonathan Lopez
7:35pm 4 March 2009

Inclusive OER

Jutta Treviranus

University of Toronto
Director of adaptive tech resource center
Established in 1994
Three functions: service, education, research and development
40-65 researchers programmers, access specialists

ATRC
- Lessons of levers, food chains and concrete
- The most influence and laughingly limited resources
- Exemplars that act as challenges

Learn best and most productive when:
- In a comfortable environment
- You know where everything is
- You are not distracted by extraneous things
- The tool and space does not demand your attention but becomes habituated
- The space is optimized to your needs, the space is accessible

User experience, user interface has become contested real estate

The idea of cookie cutter users, advertisements, not accessible for everyone, not optimal, not a “personal” space

The Vision-
A learning environment that is optimized for each learner that inspires creativity and capitalizes on technical innovation, not restrain technical innovation

The learning outcomes evidence:
- No significant difference in cost or time
- Personalizing does significantly improve learning outcomes
- Addresses educational breakdown
- Assists marginalized students
- Compresses bell curve

To meet the vision:
- We require: transformable, flexible user interface, software that supports this presentation frameworks, interoperability standards and specs
New attitude for the educator content producer, application developer, user

New approaches to meeting accessibility commitments on the web
1. Single compliant resource approach
2. Media rich plus accessible alternative approach
3. Transformation based approach

Problems identified with single compliant resource approach
- Rejection of valuable resources that are not compliant
- Accessible for everyone but optimal for no one
- Time and expertise required of all resource creators
- Reluctance to use new or innovative technologies
- Design decisions often do not make the experience better for all users (breaks the “curbcut rule”)


Problems identified with two version approach:
- Accessible version not maintained and becomes outdated
- Unequal access to resource
- People with disabilities not homogenous

The transformation approach:
- A transformable flexible resource system
- Dynamically matching resources and resource delivery to needs of each individual

The difference:
- “Just in case” approach vs. “just in time” approach
- Resources compliance vs. system compliance
- Accessible to everyone vs. optimized for every individual


Interoperability standards and specifications

- IMS accessforall
- ACCLIP: common language for describing what you need and prefer as a user in what context
- ACCMD: common language for describing resources so they can be matched with user needs and preferences
- accessibility is relative

Accessibility
- Disability= mismatch between user and pathway to resource

Transformable
- Services that can be used by any web-based educational system

Preferable
- Wizard that allows users to specify preferences or needs by answering easy to understand questions

StyleAble
- Creates and delivers style sheets and document transformation
- Information can be reorganized (top-down/ horizontal, etc.)

SenseAble
- Combines resources to meet individual needs

Fluid
- Academic community source and open source software projects
- Created for diverse users who demand undemanding tools

Problem:
- Systemic problem of poor and inconsistent UI
- Frequently left to programmers
- Tackled at the end
- Redundantly developed

Institutional preferences, cultural difference, linguistic differences, age differences, different teaching, learning approaches, etc.
These all call for different methods

Accessibility guidelines constrain creativity, band-aid approach

Goal: consistent user experience

Consistent user experience vs. accommodating interface

Flexible user interface could help alleviate this

http://fluidproject.org

http://www.atutor.ca

Jutta Treviranus
1:47pm 6 March 2009

To summarize in three points:

1. Inclusive design, and thereby accessibility for people with disabilities, does not need to cost more.

2. There are innumerable benefits to designing our resources and delivery mechanisms inclusively: longevity, flexibility, sustainability, device independence, internationalization, localization as well as accessibility.

3. Inclusive design optimizes learning for all learners and supports educators in more effectively meeting their pedagogical goals.