I have several moodle sites that I manage from 1.6 to 1.8, I am going to use 1.9 for a new moodle site and want to know if 1.9 conforms to the latest accessibility reqyuirements.
thank you
Stewart, Bournemouth
Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Stewart Perrett -
Number of replies: 14
In reply to Stewart Perrett
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
Which accessibility requirements are you referring to?
In reply to Marcus Green
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Stewart Perrett -
As 1.9 is CSS driven I am guessing Moodle Themes are compliant with latest accessibility, I was given the following as a guide to check agaist:
1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content
2. Don’t rely on colour alone
3. Use mark-up and style sheets and do so properly
4. Clarify natural language usage
5. Create tables that transform gracefully
6. Ensure that pages featuring new technologies transform gracefully
7. Ensure user control of time-sensitive content changes
8. Ensure direct accessibility of embedded user interfaces
9. Design for device-independence
10. Use interim solutions
11. Use W3C technologies and guidelines
12. Provide context and orientation information
13. Provide clear navigation mechanisms
14. Ensure that documents are clear and simple
Other points to consider
1. PDF documentation
2. Title Attributes
3. Further alt attribute guidelines
4. Further text links guidelines
5. Meta data
6. Functions
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.0
Does this help
regards
Stewart
1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content
2. Don’t rely on colour alone
3. Use mark-up and style sheets and do so properly
4. Clarify natural language usage
5. Create tables that transform gracefully
6. Ensure that pages featuring new technologies transform gracefully
7. Ensure user control of time-sensitive content changes
8. Ensure direct accessibility of embedded user interfaces
9. Design for device-independence
10. Use interim solutions
11. Use W3C technologies and guidelines
12. Provide context and orientation information
13. Provide clear navigation mechanisms
14. Ensure that documents are clear and simple
Other points to consider
1. PDF documentation
2. Title Attributes
3. Further alt attribute guidelines
4. Further text links guidelines
5. Meta data
6. Functions
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.0
Does this help
regards
Stewart
In reply to Stewart Perrett
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
Ahh yes that helps, the key was WACG
Which is a W3c guidline (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/)
I'm neither an expert on WACG or Moodles accessibility however I'll comment on what I know.
As you can tell from your own list the guidlines tend to be desirables rather than absolute and very few non trivial web applications will conform in every respect to every desirable, however.....
The moodle developers pay attention to accessibility in that they generally avoid relying on JavaScript and there is an emphasis on using CSS for layout. Any tool that intends to be taken seriously in education must have an emphasis on accessibility and Moodle does that. An interesting way of checking accessibility on any web application is to see how it looks under a text only browser such as lynx or links (one or both can be downloaded as part of the cygwin suite).
I have a vague memory that there was a way at one point of clicking a button and sending the moodle generated html through an accessibility checker (but that is a rather blurred memory), can anyone remind me.
I have just done a search and found this in the moodle developer guidelines
"XHTML
All output from Moodle must be compliant with XHTML Strict 1.0, and also compliant with all common accessibility guidelines (such as W3C WAG). "
That comes from
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:Overview
Also check out this forum
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=5752
MG
Which is a W3c guidline (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/)
I'm neither an expert on WACG or Moodles accessibility however I'll comment on what I know.
As you can tell from your own list the guidlines tend to be desirables rather than absolute and very few non trivial web applications will conform in every respect to every desirable, however.....
The moodle developers pay attention to accessibility in that they generally avoid relying on JavaScript and there is an emphasis on using CSS for layout. Any tool that intends to be taken seriously in education must have an emphasis on accessibility and Moodle does that. An interesting way of checking accessibility on any web application is to see how it looks under a text only browser such as lynx or links (one or both can be downloaded as part of the cygwin suite).
I have a vague memory that there was a way at one point of clicking a button and sending the moodle generated html through an accessibility checker (but that is a rather blurred memory), can anyone remind me.
I have just done a search and found this in the moodle developer guidelines
"XHTML
All output from Moodle must be compliant with XHTML Strict 1.0, and also compliant with all common accessibility guidelines (such as W3C WAG). "
That comes from
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:Overview
Also check out this forum
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=5752
MG
In reply to Marcus Green
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Tim Hunt -
That statement from the developer guidelines has applied since a lot of work was done on accessibility for the Moodle 1.8 release.
Now, any specific failure of Moodle to meet these guidelines should be treated as a bug filed in the tracker, so we know about it and can fix it. (But search to make sure it is not already reported first.)
Now, any specific failure of Moodle to meet these guidelines should be treated as a bug filed in the tracker, so we know about it and can fix it. (But search to make sure it is not already reported first.)
In reply to Stewart Perrett
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by sam marshall -
No it doesn't - there are many things in Moodle that ought to be changed from an accessibility perspective. However 1.9 is certainly a lot better than 1.6 so if you care about accessibility this is one more strong reason for upgrading.
As Tim noted, you can file bugs if you discover an area where Moodle violates accessibility guidelines. It's a huge program so there are areas where it doesn't.
Also, because Moodle allows users to enter HTML content, it is possible for users to create inaccessible content regardless of the system. This is probably the most likely area for problems. For example let's say there is nowhere in Moodle that the difference between green and red (alone) is used to indicate information... hopefully this is true so Moodle 'passes' that guideline, or mostly... but that obviously doesn't stop an editing teacher from creating an html resource that uses colour to indicate information.
Also by the way, I started this with 'No it doesn't' but that does not mean I think Moodle is likely to be worse than any equivalent system, I suspect it's better... there are not a lot of accessible web applications.
--sam
As Tim noted, you can file bugs if you discover an area where Moodle violates accessibility guidelines. It's a huge program so there are areas where it doesn't.
Also, because Moodle allows users to enter HTML content, it is possible for users to create inaccessible content regardless of the system. This is probably the most likely area for problems. For example let's say there is nowhere in Moodle that the difference between green and red (alone) is used to indicate information... hopefully this is true so Moodle 'passes' that guideline, or mostly... but that obviously doesn't stop an editing teacher from creating an html resource that uses colour to indicate information.
Also by the way, I started this with 'No it doesn't' but that does not mean I think Moodle is likely to be worse than any equivalent system, I suspect it's better... there are not a lot of accessible web applications.
--sam
In reply to sam marshall
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
"Also, because Moodle allows users to enter HTML content,"
I wouldn't count that against moodle accessibility. It would be a stern trade off to prevent HTML being entered anywhere in Moodle to ensure accessibility.
Was I dreaming about the xhtml conformity checking button?
I wouldn't count that against moodle accessibility. It would be a stern trade off to prevent HTML being entered anywhere in Moodle to ensure accessibility.
Was I dreaming about the xhtml conformity checking button?
In reply to Marcus Green
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Tim Hunt -
That is not what sam was saying.
The logic is not: Moodle lets people enter HTML, so Moodle is inaccessible.
The logic is: Moodle lets people enter HTML, so Moodle gives people lots of flexibility in creating their course content. Moodle gives people lots of flexibility in creating course content, so they have enough flexibility to create completely inaccessible content if they do not know what they are doing.
The logic is not: Moodle lets people enter HTML, so Moodle is inaccessible.
The logic is: Moodle lets people enter HTML, so Moodle gives people lots of flexibility in creating their course content. Moodle gives people lots of flexibility in creating course content, so they have enough flexibility to create completely inaccessible content if they do not know what they are doing.
In reply to Tim Hunt
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
I agree, however a discussion of Moodle accessibility that covers the potential inaccessibility of entered HTML might give a misleading impression. So I thought it made sense to reinforce the nature of that possibility. Which Tim has now done very nicely.
In reply to Marcus Green
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by sam marshall -
Actually, I do count it against Moodle accessibility, a bit. Moodle's HTML editor even encourages inappropriate use of HTML by providing font and size buttons, for example. (You can turn these off - I would recommend doing so.)
I believe that Moodle should (a) ensure well-formed XHTML in all user data in the database (by cleaning up the data after it is received from the browser), (b) provide a user interface that encourages high-quality as well as well-formed XHTML (ie no font/style/colour buttons in html editor), (c) provide mechanisms to actively prevent user styling of that nature ie if they do it in source view. Both (b) and (c) would probably need to be optional.
This would be beneficial for accessibility and also for consistency/'brand' theme etc.
The OU version of moodle has various hacks (they are only hacks and not suitable for use in core code) which actually apply some of this. (And there is also an even worse hack so that 'trusted' staff can bypass the restrictions when they really need to enter advanced html content.)
Another possible improvements might be to do something with heading levels, which is one problem that has been reported several times by our accessibility testers. [Headings are important for screenreader users.] Basically in a wiki say, the wiki has its own page structure and set of headings. The problem is that even if these headings are correctly organised - there's an H1 for the main heading, subheadings are H2, etc - it is possible for wiki users to override this and mess it up by entering an H1 in their post
Really they should be restricted to, say, H3 or below in that context. (Whereas say, if you are editing an html resource, you get at least H2.) That kind of thing.
So anyway, I agree Moodle accessibility in this area is no worse than other web applications (which also often allow arbitrary HTML content from ordinary users) but I don't think that means there is no room for improvement with regard to user-entered content, simply because there is no reason at all we have to settle for 'oh, every user can do anything they like [except some security restrictions] in all circumstances'. Maybe in Moode 2.1...
Oh, incidentally - the HTMLArea editor does badly in accessibility testing, but TinyMCE (which Moodle 2 will use) is much better. So that's one area where Moodle will definitely be improving significantly.
It's really impossible to say that Moodle or anything else is anywhere near being 'fully accessible' though. I honestly don't think that is possible for any web application that doesn't have (as its only display option) a completely plain interface using completely standard HTML - oh, and don't forget that you must also ensure you use only simple words (for those with cognitive disabilities) and also provide diagram or perhaps video alternatives (again, for those who have trouble understanding long chunks of text)!
Just as one example, our accessibility testers recently pointed out that the calendar items are a problem for those using screen magnifiers because in our theme, the edit buttons were right-aligned with the box so that users with a magnifier might miss these (as they could be looking at only the left end of the box, if the text in it is short). Yep, you heard it here first - we aren't allowed to right-align anything any more!
Leaving that aside though, two things are still true:
(1) there is still room for plenty of feasible improvements in Moodle, including parts of the system (e.g. calendar, the html editor as mentioned, use of headings is a bit of a mess in places although this has improved) and better control of user input.
(2) Moodle has already improved a lot since 1.6, and will continue improving.
--sam
I believe that Moodle should (a) ensure well-formed XHTML in all user data in the database (by cleaning up the data after it is received from the browser), (b) provide a user interface that encourages high-quality as well as well-formed XHTML (ie no font/style/colour buttons in html editor), (c) provide mechanisms to actively prevent user styling of that nature ie if they do it in source view. Both (b) and (c) would probably need to be optional.
This would be beneficial for accessibility and also for consistency/'brand' theme etc.
The OU version of moodle has various hacks (they are only hacks and not suitable for use in core code) which actually apply some of this. (And there is also an even worse hack so that 'trusted' staff can bypass the restrictions when they really need to enter advanced html content.)
Another possible improvements might be to do something with heading levels, which is one problem that has been reported several times by our accessibility testers. [Headings are important for screenreader users.] Basically in a wiki say, the wiki has its own page structure and set of headings. The problem is that even if these headings are correctly organised - there's an H1 for the main heading, subheadings are H2, etc - it is possible for wiki users to override this and mess it up by entering an H1 in their post
So anyway, I agree Moodle accessibility in this area is no worse than other web applications (which also often allow arbitrary HTML content from ordinary users) but I don't think that means there is no room for improvement with regard to user-entered content, simply because there is no reason at all we have to settle for 'oh, every user can do anything they like [except some security restrictions] in all circumstances'. Maybe in Moode 2.1...
Oh, incidentally - the HTMLArea editor does badly in accessibility testing, but TinyMCE (which Moodle 2 will use) is much better. So that's one area where Moodle will definitely be improving significantly.
It's really impossible to say that Moodle or anything else is anywhere near being 'fully accessible' though. I honestly don't think that is possible for any web application that doesn't have (as its only display option) a completely plain interface using completely standard HTML - oh, and don't forget that you must also ensure you use only simple words (for those with cognitive disabilities) and also provide diagram or perhaps video alternatives (again, for those who have trouble understanding long chunks of text)!
Just as one example, our accessibility testers recently pointed out that the calendar items are a problem for those using screen magnifiers because in our theme, the edit buttons were right-aligned with the box so that users with a magnifier might miss these (as they could be looking at only the left end of the box, if the text in it is short). Yep, you heard it here first - we aren't allowed to right-align anything any more!
Leaving that aside though, two things are still true:
(1) there is still room for plenty of feasible improvements in Moodle, including parts of the system (e.g. calendar, the html editor as mentioned, use of headings is a bit of a mess in places although this has improved) and better control of user input.
(2) Moodle has already improved a lot since 1.6, and will continue improving.
--sam
In reply to sam marshall
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
re:
"It's really impossible to say that Moodle or anything else is anywhere near being 'fully accessible' though."
There is a freely available VLE that claims the following
"first inclusive LCMS, complying with the W3C WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 accessibility specifications at the AA+ level, allowing access to all potential learners, instructors, and administrators, including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies."
This may indicate what it is possible to do if you make it the No 1 priority.
However when I last tried it Moodle was much more attractive in every other respect and additionally I suspect Moodle has pulled ahead featurewise and supportwise since then.
"It's really impossible to say that Moodle or anything else is anywhere near being 'fully accessible' though."
There is a freely available VLE that claims the following
"first inclusive LCMS, complying with the W3C WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 accessibility specifications at the AA+ level, allowing access to all potential learners, instructors, and administrators, including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies."
This may indicate what it is possible to do if you make it the No 1 priority.
However when I last tried it Moodle was much more attractive in every other respect and additionally I suspect Moodle has pulled ahead featurewise and supportwise since then.
In reply to Marcus Green
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by sam marshall -
Yes, making accessibility your top priority results in useless software that happens to be accessible. 
Also Moodle may not be 'AA+' on every aspect of those specs (there is an AA+? damn) but in general, in most areas of code, when configured correctly and when teachers/users behave appropriately, it does still 'allow access to all potential learners, instructors, and administrators, including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies'. Occasionally that access is more awkward than it should be, or problematic in some other respect, but I don't think Moodle 1.9 is hugely inaccessible.
Or at least, our accessibility testers have not thrown a hissy-fit* and screamed down the phone that we need to pull the plug on it RIGHT NOW - which I think amounts to the same thing.
--sam
* Not that they would really do that, of course. Um... they don't read this forum, do they? *hides*
Also Moodle may not be 'AA+' on every aspect of those specs (there is an AA+? damn) but in general, in most areas of code, when configured correctly and when teachers/users behave appropriately, it does still 'allow access to all potential learners, instructors, and administrators, including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies'. Occasionally that access is more awkward than it should be, or problematic in some other respect, but I don't think Moodle 1.9 is hugely inaccessible.
Or at least, our accessibility testers have not thrown a hissy-fit* and screamed down the phone that we need to pull the plug on it RIGHT NOW - which I think amounts to the same thing.
--sam
* Not that they would really do that, of course. Um... they don't read this forum, do they? *hides*
In reply to sam marshall
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Marcus Green -
"Yes, making accessibility your top priority results in useless software that happens to be accessible."
Using the word useless is and exaggeration as I believe that the product has considerable merit [humor on]It also reflects excellent political engineering potential[/humor off]
But back to the original question as we have wandered a bit, Yes the latest Moodle offers additional benefits in terms of accessibility and upgrading is worthwhile.
Using the word useless is and exaggeration as I believe that the product has considerable merit [humor on]It also reflects excellent political engineering potential[/humor off]
But back to the original question as we have wandered a bit, Yes the latest Moodle offers additional benefits in terms of accessibility and upgrading is worthwhile.
In reply to Stewart Perrett
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Michael Penney -
Hi Stewart, the California State University system recently completed an RFP in which accessibility was a key criterion. Moodle was one of the LMS's checked that met CalState's demanding accessibility requirements.
www.calstate.edu/acadaff/codedmemos/AA-2008-15.pdf
As an international project, Moodle has done a very great deal of work to meet the national accessibility requirements around the world (including invaluable work done by the Open University), a good discussion of that process is found here
http://docs.moodle.org/en/accessibility
A key feature of the CSU's process (and that also followed by a number of the California Community College's) is that accessibility requirements are tested by differently abled students and faculty, e.g. vendor claims are not accepted without actually users who most need the software to be accessible, testing the software. The CSU in fact has a lab named "CUDA" where such tests are performed, and can be contracted to provide independent verification of vendor accessibility claims.
http://www.csulb.edu/centers/cuda/
IMO, such independent tests are essential, as even the best vendors are not the best judges of the end users actual accessibility requirements.
www.calstate.edu/acadaff/codedmemos/AA-2008-15.pdf
As an international project, Moodle has done a very great deal of work to meet the national accessibility requirements around the world (including invaluable work done by the Open University), a good discussion of that process is found here
http://docs.moodle.org/en/accessibility
A key feature of the CSU's process (and that also followed by a number of the California Community College's) is that accessibility requirements are tested by differently abled students and faculty, e.g. vendor claims are not accepted without actually users who most need the software to be accessible, testing the software. The CSU in fact has a lab named "CUDA" where such tests are performed, and can be contracted to provide independent verification of vendor accessibility claims.
http://www.csulb.edu/centers/cuda/
IMO, such independent tests are essential, as even the best vendors are not the best judges of the end users actual accessibility requirements
In reply to Michael Penney
Re: Does moodle 1.9 comform to latest accessibility guidelines
by Michael Haskell -
Like many others, I'm reviewing how well Moodle (in this case 1.9) meets the CSU's accessiblity guidelines.
I noticed the memo issued by the CSU's Office of the Chancellor was issued to MoodleRooms in particular as the vendor for Moodle.
Do you know if there are any accessibility improvements added to the version of Moodle evaulated during the MoodleRooms review that would not be present in the community version of Moodle? If so, are these modifications "re-seeded" back to the community at some point?
Thanks again for the great post.