Accessibility development tools

There are a great set links for free development tools (validation services, browser toolbars and plugins) posted on the Web Access Centre Blog today:

Looking for alternatives to Bobby and WebXact? Try these!

Anyone familiar with accessibility should already know about Cynthia Says and a few of the web-based validation services… what I was impressed with were the links for the browser add-ons, specifically the Web Accessibility Toolbar for IE. It’s very similar to Chris Pederick’s popular Web Developer Toolbar extension for Firefox (which I use religiously), and is a nice upgrade from Microsoft’s ho-hum IE Developer Toolbar. Lastly, Jon Gunderson’s Firefox Accessibility Extension is another great Firefox add-on.

Check out the other links mentioned in the blog post, and the Web Access Centre’s site when you have time.

Advertisements

Development standards for e-learning… a starting point

Understanding that we should be using standards and best practices throughout e-learning development, the question becomes “what standards and best practices should we follow?”

Here’s my attempt at outlining some basics. Please feel free to suggest additional items in the comments section.

Follow established “web” best practices.

Separate presentation from content as much as possible by using Cascading Style Sheets and semantic (X)HTML markup.

  1. Use classes instead of inline styles or font tags.
  2. Avoid tables for layout purposes, except when presenting tabular data.
  3. Keep your markup semantic by properly using available elements: h1, h2 and h3 for headings, p for paragraphs, div for block-level content divisions (similar to fieldset in forms), and span for inline classes. Don’t be afraid to try lesser-known elements such as acronym for acronyms, dl for definition lists, and cite for citations!
    1. Note: although div is heavily used in CSS-based layouts, you should try to avoid overuse of the div element. Bloated markup is unsemantic and ugly.
    2. Avoid direct copying and pasting from Microsoft Office products, as this tends to insert bloated Microsoft-specific HTML.
  4. Avoid deprecated or browser-specific elements such as blink and marquee.

Separate behavior from content as much as possible by using unobtrusive JavaScript techniques.

Even if your course depends on JavaScript being available, this is a good practice to follow.

  1. Don’t use inline scripts. Keep all scripts in the head of your document or in an external .JS file.
  2. Use a lot of error checking throughout your scripts. This helps ensure that if an error occurs, your script should fail gracefully, and you should be able to diagnose the problem more easily.
  3. Avoid using JavaScript where it isn’t needed. CSS is capable of handling many chores once assigned to JavaScript, such as image-based mouseovers and “hover” or “dropdown” menus. CSS has the added bonus of processing the chore much faster than JavaScript, too!
  4. Avoid using the global space. With the proliferation of JavaScript in our “Web 2.0” world, web pages use multiple script libraries and customs functions. Avoiding using the global space by using faux “namespacing” (object literals) can greatly reduce the odds of your script conflicting with another script.

Avoid plugins and browser-specific technologies as much as possible

  1. Don’t use Microsoft’s ActiveX or the Windows-specific FSCommand. Stick to cross-browser and cross-platform solutions.
  2. Avoid Java and any other format that requires a plugin, especially one that requires a large download. Flash Player may be the only exception due to its incredibly high saturation rate, but even then you should plan ahead in case users don’t have Flash Player available.
  3. If a plugin is required, especially an unusual or uncommon plugin, be sure to notify the user of the requirement before they launch the course.

Keep content as accessible as possible by following established accessibility best practices.

  1. Avoid tables for layout purposes, except when presenting tabular data.
  2. Avoid using images for important navigation elements. Your markup will be cleaner (and you’ll be separating your style from content) by sticking to text-based navigation links. Don’t worry — you can still use images by utilizing CSS image replacement techniques! If you decide to use images in your markup, be sure to include useful descriptive text in the alt attribute.
  3. Be aware of tab order; don’t mess with the tab order of page elements unless it’s absolutely necessary.
  4. If your page contains lots of navigation menu items, give the user a ‘skip navigation’ option. This is especially important for people who use screen readers.
  5. Ensure links contain useful text such as “Click here to continue” or even “continue,” not the more obscure “click here.”
  6. Heavy use of onmouseover and onclick in JavaScript can cause problems for people who don’t use a mouse (many people use their keyboard for all navigation purposes). Be aware of the repercussions of your coding techniques.
  7. Try testing your course in a popular screen reader such as JAWS.
  8. Rich media such as Flash videos are fine to use in your course. However, there are some simple steps you can take to ensure your Flash content is as widely accessible as possible:
    1. Use fallback (popularly known as “alternate”) content in your HTML in case Flash is not available. For instance, if your page contains a Flash video, include a text transcription in the HTML. When Flash isn’t available, display this transcription automatically (SWFObject is great for this purpose).
    2. If using video, screencasts, or any other media that contains audio narration, include a closed-captioning option or a link to a text transcription.
    3. Adobe has made strides to make Flash SWFs more accessible. Keep up with the latest trends, and use Flash best practices to ensure maximum accessibility.

Keep your courseware portable.

  1. Avoid server-side dependencies such as Active Server Pages (ASP), PHP, and databases.
  2. Use standardized LMS communication protocols such as SCORM and AICC. Avoid using proprietary course-to-LMS communication methods as they make content migration and reusability a very difficult task.
  3. Avoid using remote content if possible. Some systems may not be able to access the remote content due to security or connectivity issues, which could lead to a broken course.

Ensure your course has a long shelf-life and is easily maintainable.

  1. Avoid uncommon development platforms and/or proprietary file formats whenever possible. This ensures your content will remain editable for the foreseeable future.
  2. Clearly annotate/document your development process and home-brewed scripts. This ensures future team members and/or contractors will be able to work on the project if needed.
  3. If you compile or compress your files, be sure to keep a commented, uncompressed copy of each file with your development files. This applies to both JavaScript and Flash-based projects.

What do you think?

Let’s have a conversation about this. I’m 100% positive I’ve missed a few things, and I’m pretty sure not everyone will agree with my statements. Why not join in and add your two cents? I’ll leave the comments section for this topic open indefinitely.

Why don’t more e-learning developers use standards?

Question: Why don’t more e-learning developers use standards?

I don’t know for sure, but I have a number of guesses. Here’s a quick list off the top of my head:

  • Lack of knowledge about standards
  • Confusing or obtuse documentation
  • Competing standards
  • Misconceptions about cost effectiveness
  • Difficulty / Lack of support in development tools

This is a sort of stream-of-consciousness post, so I’m sure I’m missing a few things. Feel free to add your two cents.

Lack of knowledge about standards

It’s my opinion that a large number of e-learning developers are non-technical, or are mid-level techies who came into the field from other areas. Not having a background in web development, many of these developers probably don’t know that using tables for layout purposes is a faux-pas, or realize the power of well-written CSS. Many of these developers probably rely on their e-learning development tools to handle that stuff for them.

And for those who know all about web standards, e-learning standards are a whole ‘nother beast. Being a master with CSS doesn’t mean you’ll easily grasp the depths of SCORM’s murky sequencing features. Which leads us to…

Confusing or obtuse documentation

I like SCORM. I also hate SCORM. Such is life.

There are a number of proposed standards for e-learning courseware, with SCORM and AICC probably leading the way. However, AICC is considered out of date, and SCORM is considered difficult to use. As with many proposed standards, I believe SCORM’s steep learning curve lies largely in the really hard-to-read documentation and unclear examples.

My apologies to those who wrote the documentation — I do think it’s very thorough — but for someone who isn’t familiar with SCORM, trying to get a handle on it by reading those documents is a very frustrating experience. I think Claude Ostyn’s Cooking Up a SCORM and Eye of the SCORM documents were the most reader-friendly SCORM documents available, but with his unfortunate and untimely passing, they probably won’t be updated.

Competing standards

SCORM isn’t the only standard out there. As some of you may recall from my previous post, the IMS Global Learning Consortium (among others) has created a number of proposed standards for the world to use, including the IMS manifest (which accompanies every SCORM course), the Question and Test Interoperability specification, and most recently, the ultra-secretive Common Cartridge proposal.

Having tried my hand at using these IMS standards, lemme tell ya, they are not easy or fun to use. Big disincentive from the start. (The IMS takes inconvenience one step further by making it difficult to even figure out exactly what their standards are.)

The IMS is working on the Common Cartridge Alliance. According to some, it’s a SCORM killer that will revolutionize e-learning courseware.

However, SCORM is much more established, and has been adopted by every major LMS vendor. Assuming the Common Cartridge is as good as promised (and the specification ever becomes publicly available), it will force developers to choose sides.

Backing off of e-learning standards for a minute, what about other competing standards? There are no shortage of standards to choose from: HTML 4 versus XHTML 1.0 (and soon HTML 5 versus XHTML 2.0); Internet Explorer (and its proprietary ActiveX controls) versus Firefox/Safari/Opera/et al, Adobe Flash versus the new kid on the block Microsoft Silverlight, etc.

Making sound choices involves homework on the issues. Oftentimes, I think people make their choice based on ease of use (“does my WYSIWYG editor support it?”) or cost. This is a fair point; after all, we can only do what our budgets allow, right? Well…

Misconceptions about cost effectiveness

One of the biggest arguments against standards and best practices is the amount of time it takes to get up and running with standards.

When it comes to web standards such as valid XHTML markup and CSS-based layouts (separating content from presentation), I think a small amount of time getting acquainted with the techniques pays big dividends in the long run. When using standards and best practices, you’ll spend less time troubleshooting browser compatibility, less time updating the look and feel (external CSS makes it so much easier!), and less effort making the course work in different mediums (standard web browser versus mobile versus text reader, etc.).

Using standards also ensures your courseware will have a longer shelf life.

It’s too expensive to NOT use standards and best practices.

Difficulty / Lack of support in development tools

A hot topic of late is the quality and capabilities of e-learning development tools. Personally, I don’t use them very much except for special needs, such as making animated screen captures in Captivate and/or Camtasia. I normally stick to standard web development tools such as Dreamweaver and Flash Professional.

However, I totally understand the needs of many others out there who don’t have the time and/or expertise to make courseware from scratch; there’s a reason the e-learning development tool field has really bloomed the last few years, and it won’t slow down anytime soon.

But as I’ve mentioned before, these tools most often do not support web standards or best practices. What’s worse, they often completely ignore standards while making the purchaser/user of the software think they’re getting top-notch, state-of-the-art stuff. It’s false advertising, but it’s also effective marketing. Very effective.

I wish the e-learning tools market would shape up and self-regulate! (Riiiight…) Hey tool developers: Use standards because they matter. Use best practices because they’re best practices for a reason. If you incorporate standards and best practices in this young niche market, you could very well find yourself top-shelf in a matter of months. If you were already top-shelf, you could become uber-elite. Think about it.

So what can we do?

I know I keep espousing standards without really giving enough concrete know-how and direction. Honestly, I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have the answers — but maybe together we can do something about it. I’m proposing we create a community-defined set of simplified e-learning development standards that can be viewed more as ‘rules of thumb’ than law.

For starters, a standard like SCORM is very intimidating because of its intricacies and density. Claude Ostyn’s writings were enlightening if only because the first thing he did was show an extremely simple example of a single-page course. His point was that just because SCORM can be used in-depth doesn’t mean it has to be. We can just use it for what we need and ignore the rest. A great example is SCORM’s page sequencing and navigation system; it’s really tricky to figure out, and requires a really complicated imsmanifest.xml file. If your course only has a few pages, or if you already have a decent navigation system worked out, don’t use SCORM’s navigation features. You can still create a SCORM-conformant course (SCO) that will work with any SCORM-conformant LMS!

Got ideas?

So how about it? I’m going to start writing down simple, easy-to-digest rules of thumb that I hope someone will find useful. I intend to provide examples and/or links with every concept. Will you help me? Maybe together we can get this thing turned around.

Building e-learning courses: Should we use e-learning authoring tools?

This post was triggered by BJ Schone’s question “How do you build e-learning courses?

So, here’s my question: How do you build your e-learning courses? Do you build them from scratch (ex. HTML, JavaScript, etc.)? Do you use an authoring tool for the whole course structure?

This is an interesting question. Personally, I use home-grown solutions, not any particular e-learning authoring tool, though I often use e-learning authoring tools such as Adobe Captivate to create some of my animated content.

However, I think before you can really dispense advice which particular development approach is best, there are a number of factors to consider.

Questions abound

Who’s using the tools?

Development tools are generally used for two things: creating new courses and updating existing courses.

Here are two common scenarios for teams creating new courses:

  1. The team is large, with specialists. I know of some e-learning companies who have specialists for each type of project task, with strict orders to maintain the development boundaries: the instructional designer only works on curriculum development, the writer only writes, the web developer only works on the technological elements, the graphic designer only works on graphic elements, the subject-matter expert only provides insight about the topic and is not involved in any technological development tasks, etc. Apparently this makes it easier to subcontract the work and replace or augment team members where needed.
  2. The team is small, with generalists. In most cases, each person in an e-learning development team wears multiple hats: the instructional designer also does some web and/or graphic design, the subject-matter expert writes large chunks of the curriculum, etc. There often isn’t an experienced web developer on the team, so the team may be forced to learn an off-the-shelf program such as Captivate or Lectora just to get the course out the door. Sometimes, if the team can afford it or is in a time crunch, they may hire a subcontractor to do the technical work.

I think situation #1 lends itself to standard web development tools, whereas situation #2 lends itself to e-learning authoring tools. More on that in a minute.

When you get to updating courses, the question becomes: Who is responsible for maintaining the course? If the course is internal, do your coworkers know how to use the software, too? If the course was for a client, are they expected to purchase the development tools you used, and have enough technical expertise to use them?

Is portability a concern?

The portability of the content is an often-overlooked issue. When I speak of portability, I mean portability in three senses:

  1. Portability as a course from one LMS to another
  2. Portability of the content fragments within a course from one course to another
  3. Portability of the entire course to other file formats or mediums, such as XML, PDF, a database, etc.

What about accessibility?

We should never forget that there are a significant number of people taking our courses who may have special needs, including people who may be deaf, blind, color-blind, have low-vision, or other physical impairments (such as limited ability to use a mouse or keyboard).

Where are you going with this?

Buckle your seatbelts, you may not like this statement: Most e-learning tools do not promote the creation of effective courses, do not promote web standards, and do not promote accessibility; they merely make cookie-cutter course development easier for technically inexperienced course developers.

There, I’ve said it. Please don’t hate me.

Let me take a few moments to explain my thoughts on the subject.

Effective courses

Let me be clear: I am NOT saying that e-learning tools cannot create effective courses. However, I do believe that the templatized nature of most e-learning development tools leads many course developers to favor convenience over effective communication and education.

More time is spent on shoehorning course content into templates, and less time is spent on the instructional design aspects of course-building, where you stop and ask “how can I really engage the audience during the course?” (And by ‘engage’ I don’t mean just adding a simple quiz question.) Personally I don’t find the pre-built interactions in many e-learning tools to be very good. And the few that are good tend to be so overused that they get stale fast.

Since many of the developers using these authoring tools are not experienced web developers, they rarely venture ‘outside the box’ with the tool, and tend to stick to the course options presented by the software. Thus, the course developer’s options are often limited to the tool manufacturer’s instructional design preferences and notions of what constitutes a ‘proper’ course. This may lead to a boring, unimaginative course, or even worse, a course that doesn’t meet the needs of the learner.

My gist is that the tool, with its limitations and hard-coded inclinations, often winds up driving the end product more than the instructional designer. This is not unlike PowerPoint’s relationship with presenters, and how PowerPoint templates have reshaped modern notions of what a good presentation should be.

As I see it, PowerPoint presentations became the standard for two key reasons: they make presentations seem more ‘official’ or ‘professional,’ and entry-level users found the software’s templates to be very easy to use.

PowerPoint is not the answer

“Need to create an online course but don’t know how? Our tool allows you to convert your existing PowerPoint presentations into effective, engaging courses in MINUTES!”

This sounds like a dream come true for non-technical people who need to create an online course fast. But let me ask you a question: how many GOOD PowerPoint presentations have you seen that were created by non-designers? C’mon, be honest… we all know that 90% of PowerPoint’s built-in templates are ugly and hard to read.

More importantly, truly effective PowerPoint presentations are secondary (and complimentary) to a good, dynamic classroom trainer. These presentations are often simple outlines, minimalist in nature, designed to focus the attention on the presenter, not the PowerPoint file.

Simply stated, a PowerPoint presentation is designed to display a linear presentation of bullet points. How does a linear presentation of text (perhaps with a few animations thrown in) have any bearing on effective web-based training? Short answer: it doesn’t.

To expect a trainer’s PowerPoint presentation to be an effective online course without the trainer is preposterous. The trainer’s experience, charisma, presentation skills, and ability to fine-tune the course content to the needs of the individuals in the classroom is paramount.

(An ugly little secret in our industry is that quite a few course developers — and clients — don’t care about the effectiveness of the training nearly as much as they care about being able to say the training has been created and is available to the client. But rest assured: If you’re reading this, you probably aren’t one of them.)

e-learning development tools

I’m not implying that all e-learning tools follow the “let’s import PowerPoint!” model of course building, but you can’t deny how rampant PowerPoint-to-e-learning conversion tools have become in our industry. My belief is that our industry (and others) has a fixation on PowerPoint simply because of its ease of use.

The most popular e-learning tools I’m aware of today are Adobe Captivate, Articulate Presenter, Rapid Intake’s FlashForm, and Lectora. What do these all have in common? They’re geared towards users with little or no development expertise. Yes, they’re geared towards the PowerPoint crowd.

Each of the tools has its strengths, and I’m not telling people not to use them. However, I’d like to point out that each of the tools either creates files in proprietary formats (which requires purchasing their product just to make edits), or outputs courseware that doesn’t adhere to web standards and best practices.

What’s the alternative?

Using standardized web development techniques, including writing valid page markup, maintaining the separation of content from presentation via valid cascading stylesheets, and using unobtrusive JavaScript, will free your course from the shackles of a proprietary e-learning development tool format.

The most persuasive argument for using specialized e-learning development tools has been maintenance — the desire for easy updates and not relying on technical experts to handle the editing.

But I disagree; not being tied to a particular tool or proprietary format means that practically anyone with general web development experience will be able to make edits to your course or even create new courses using your system. Millions of people around the world work with HTML, and hundreds of thousands work with JavaScript. I’m willing to bet that the number of people familiar with proprietary e-learning development tools is much smaller, probably numbering in the thousands. It’s a niche.

Maintaining courses built with web standards means you can hire just about any college student or web designer to come in and make changes. It means YOU can make changes if you learn a little about HTML, or use a standards-supporting WYSIWYG editor such as Adobe Dreamweaver. The key is for your course system to adhere to web standards.

ELearning software that outputs to HTML (such as Lectora and ToolBook) do not output HTML documents that adhere to web standards. Same for many homegrown proprietary formats that have caused grumbles in offices like yours and mine. Not only are these courses harder to update, but they’re more likely to have browser compatibility issues and are less likely to be ‘future proof.’ Adobe Captivate is a good example: The latest Captivate SWFs aren’t even compatible with Flash SWFs created in Flash CS3 (publishing to ActionScript 3).

Using standard web technology means you will have the greatest flexibility possible, including the ability to embed rich media (Flash, Quicktime, etc.) whenever you like. It also means your courses will work in the largest percentage of browsers possible, including mobile devices and game consoles (depending on what type of rich media you embed in your courses).

Until e-learning development tools offer greater content flexibility and create courses that adhere to best practices for web design and accessibility, I heartily recommend using standard web development tools in place of specialized e-learning development tools.

Accessibility

Web sites built for any federally-funded project are required by law to meet a certain standard for accessibility. So why don’t we ever hear anyone talk about accessible online courses? No matter how well you think you may know your audience, don’t ever think it’s reasonable to assume no one with special needs will ever take your course.

Accessibility is imperative for a certain percentage of people. It’s a complete downer for another segment of the population, who think making a web page accessible means making the web page boring and free of any rich media. Perhaps this used to be a fair assessment, but not anymore. Many good people have put in long, hard hours making formats such as Flash SWFs and Adobe PDFs more accessible. Plus many alternative web browsing devices can now parse JavaScript, enabling some JavaScript-heavy sites to maintain a reasonable degree of accessibility (disclaimer: it really depends what you’re trying to do with the JavaScript).

What’s even better is that web standards have finally taken root over the last half-dozen years, enabling manufacturers of alternative web browsers to improve their handling of the modern web page. This means that adhering to web standards will take most of the effort out of making your site accessible! You may need to tweak a few things here and there, or put some extra effort into improving the quality of the accessibility — specialized CSS, a little extra markup, and descriptive text are good starting points — but you will have at least met a basic level of accessibility without even trying. This is way cool.

This is yet another reason why using standard web development tools is a good idea, and using e-learning-specific authoring tools may not be the perfect tools their marketing departments would have you believe.

e-learning authoring tools need an overhaul

I understand that it is simply not reasonable to expect all e-learning developers to learn code and create courses using web standards. In my experience, many self-described “e-learning developers” are either instructional designers who know very little about web development beyond using a WYSIWYG editor like FrontPage, or are web developers who know little about instructional design. “Dabblers” are the norm, and I accept it.

With such a large number of non-technical people in what is largely a technical endeavor, who can blame the non-techies for wanting to use an e-learning authoring tool? They’re cheap, they’re easy, and — most importantly — they get the course out the door. The demand is there and is undeniable. Everyone wants better tools that will make their lives easier, even me.

But we can make these tools better. MUCH better. And these better tools can lead to better courses. That’s what we ALL want, right? Isn’t that why we’re in this business?

Based on what I’ve seen, the e-learning tools industry needs to shape up and provide better solutions for its customers. Here are some suggestions.

Make your tools adhere to web standards and best practices.

Make accessibility easier

When creating courses using your product, why not include tools and gentle guidance that aids the developer in making the course more usable and accessible? For instance, you could prompt users to enter descriptive text for any image imported into the course. You could have a warning appear if the user writes a sentence in all capital letters. You could have a tip appear informing the user that the table they just imported should have a long description, and should only be used for tabular data.

Use better markup and styling techniques

Speaking of tables, the documents created by your tool should never use tables for layout! Adherence to web standards means all page styling (fonts, color schemes, etc.) should be handled by external CSS, not inline styles or deprecated font tags. You should also use JavaScript sparingly, and as unobtrusively as possible. Let the page markup (HTML) and styling (CSS) do as much of the work as possible. Avoid browser-specific code, such as Microsoft’s ActiveX, like the plague.

Allow users to export their content into easily reusable formats

If your tool adheres to web standards, it should be easy to export (most) course content to a reusable format such as XML. Allowing users to export their content to XML in turn allows the user to easily repurpose the content for different media, such as importing it into a print-based document format such as Adobe FrameMaker, using server-based conversion tools to create dynamic on-demand PDFs, or syndicating the content via RSS feeds.

Give the developer more flexibility — and encouragement — to try instructional design approaches your design team may not have thought of.

Many courses are designed to be page-turners with a few interactions scattered around. I’ll admit I’ve created my fair share of these courses. Tool manufacturers often promote their built-in templates as meeting or exceeding well-established instructional design principles. Entry- and mid-level developers in this field may actually believe your marketing spiels, and think that your templates are the holy grail. This may be good for your business, but it certainly isn’t good for the person taking the course.

Why not build more navigation and format flexibility into your tool, encouraging the user to think outside the box? Remind the user that your templates are just starting points and the real power of your tool is the flexibility it provides. Adobe Captivate’s success with its branching feature is a good example of how hungry developers are for alternatives to standard, page-tuner-style linear navigation.

Wrapping this thing up

Getting back to BJ’s original question, I use custom home-grown course solutions. This isn’t for lack of wanting a good all-round e-learning authoring tool; I just think there isn’t one out there that meets my needs yet. And until there is, I feel more confident working with standard HTML, throwing in the occasional Flash or Captivate file. I recommend this approach to others because I think it’s the most browser- and platform-neutral method, and opens up the development environment to any web developer without requiring expertise in a niche (and ultimately limiting) e-learning authoring tool.

What do you think?

Wow, OK, I sure didn’t intend to write this much. As you can see I had a few things I’ve been wanting to get off my chest for a while. If you’ve made it this far, you must be interested in this topic, too, so I ask you to kindly let me know what you think. Am I off-base here or what?

Assistive computer technology and web accessibility

Just thought I’d pass this link on: http://www.assistiveware.com/videos.php (short write-up here — thanks to Roger Johansson for the link.)

These are video profiles of people with disabilities — mild to severe — who use assistive computer technology to improve their lives. Some people use their computers to simply help them with their jobs (such as a blind person who is a professional French-to-English translator), while others use their computers as a lifeline to the rest of the world.

I want to publicize this link for two reasons: One reason is because the people in the videos are completely inspiring; I can only hope that if faced with a similar situation I can be as positive and productive as they are.

The other reason is because as e-learning/web developers, we have a responsibility to be aware of the needs of people with disabilities, and try our best to make our work accessible. For e-learning and web development, this has become surprisingly easy, yet many developers still don’t do their part, or even realize that what they create isn’t particularly accessible.

Armed with a basic understanding of accessibility, and with a little planning, a web developer can create courses and/or websites that contain rich content — even Flash movies and videos — while supporting a majority of assistive computer/alternative web browsing technologies.

If you Google “web accessibility“, you’ll find a ton of tips and rules of thumb for making websites accessible. Here’s a great starting point: http://www.w3.org/WAI/quicktips/Overview.php

I hope you can spare some time to read a little about the subject; in this case, I think a little knowledge can go a long way. It isn’t hard to make sites accessible, I promise! 🙂

PS – I’m not affiliated with nor do I endorse AssistiveWare, the company that produced the videos.