Inclusion and online learning opportunities:
designing for accessibility

Efaine J. Pearson* and Tony K o p p i * *
*Special Needs Computing Research Unit, University of Teesside
**Director, Educational Development and Technology Centre (EDTeC), University of
New South Wales

email: e.pearson@tees.ac.uk, tkoppi@unsw.edu.au

Higher education institutions worldwide are adopting flexible learning methods and
online technologies which increase the potential for widening the learning community to
include people for whom participation may previously have been difficult or impossible.
The development of courseware that is accessible, flexible and informative can benefit
not only people with special needs, but such courseware provides a better educational
experience for all students.

This paper discusses an evaluation of WebCT in practice at University of New South
Wales (UNSW). The objective was to assess the accessibility of WebCT for people with
disabilities - sensory, cognitive and physical. The guidelines provided by the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, http://www.
w3.org/Tr/WAI-WEBCONTENT), checking mechanisms including the Bobby Web
page analysis tool, developed by CAST (http:llcast.org/bobbyl), and learner centred
design methods provided the basis for the evaluation. The approach involved extensive
evaluation of existing courses by the researcher, discussion with and survey of WebCT
designers, and the involvement of students with disabilities through interview and focus
groups. Issues considered include: the provision of alternative information; structure,
presentation and organization of content and navigational elements; and accessibility
with assistive technologies.

The results reveal that many barriers to accessibility can be overcome through awareness
of design issues, and that there is a need for practical advice for academics. The aim is to
present a case study of best practice in the design of accessible courseware incorporating
design strategies that will enable students with various disabilities to take advantage of
the 'just in time, just for me' approach.

17



Elaine J. Pearson andTony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

Introduction
Developments in online learning can present opportunities for a more inclusive education
for students with disabilities. Online learning facilitates real flexibility in the time and place
for learning; independence is increased through the availability of online learning
resources, and there is less reliance on the assistance of helpers such as library staff or
note-takers. The ability to submit work electronically can release the students from the
costs in time and resources in obtaining physical access. Communication can be improved
- computer technology can give voice to those without, both literally and figuratively.
Communication devices such as chat rooms, discussion groups and email can enable
students to participate without prejudice or embarrassment.

The same developments, however, can also pose further barriers to those with disabilities.
Web-based learning materials tend to be heavily text-based, and students may have
difficulty in reading or comprehending text or distinguishing colours. Many have difficulty
with organization, structure or memory, they may find material difficult to navigate, poorly
structured or complex, or the interface may be inconsistent. Students with mobility
problems, limited motor control or vision impairment may not be able to use a keyboard or
mouse. The increasing use of multimedia can be beneficial in providing an enriched
environment, but it can also be a barrier to those who cannot see or hear audio, video and
animations. Furthermore, the growth in overseas students and distance learning means
that there are increasing numbers who may not be fluent in the language of instruction.

The trend towards development of courses and resources online with the support of a
virtual learning environment (VLE) such as WebCT and Blackboard presents both
opportunities and challenges in the creation of flexible, informative and accessible
educational materials. Part of the challenge is to provide opportunities to the individuals
of a wide and varied community, some of whom might not otherwise be able to participate
in higher education. People with disabilities face particular barriers to inclusion and the
move to online learning may facilitate the lifting of some of these barriers.

There is an increasing awareness of the need to make Web sites accessible to everyone
regardless of ability/disability, with a legal imperative coming from the Disability
Discrimination Acts in the United Kingdom (http://www.disability.gov.uk/index.html) and
Australia (http://www.deet.gov.aularchiveliaelanalysislddaedcon.htm), and the Disabilities
Act (http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/section504.ada.peer.htm) in the United States.
Guidelines, including Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (W3C), and 'Web
accessibility resources: quick tips to make Web sites accessible' (http://genasys.usm.mame.
edulaccess.htm) exist to aid developers of Web sites, and an increasing number of sites
display the 'Bobby Approved' logo.

However, learning environments and resources for online teaching have other requirements
for accessibility beyond functional considerations and the use of 'ALT' (alternative text)
tags. Care needs to be taken with the navigation, structure, content design and
communication aspects, and learner-centred design is crucial to ensure that online learning
is accessible to students with disabilities.

Most discipline-based academic course developers are stretched to keep abreast of
technical developments. Often online courseware development is carried out in addition to
their normal workload and they have little time to learn programming skills or understand
the technical terminology used in many of the guidelines, such as those provided by W3C.

18



ALT-J Volume 10 Number 2

Teaching with technology is not something that can easily be picked up along the way as
something to be done off the side of the desk while engaged in more important or time-
consuming activities such as research. (Bates, 2000)

Additionally, many of the existing guidelines (Leung, Owens, Lamb, Smith, Shaw and
Hauff, 1999) lack practical examples for implementation and are themselves too technical
to be easily followed and understood by academic courseware developers. Furthermore,
the guidelines tend to concentrate on the functional aspects of Web design and the needs of
users with sight or physical impairments, while there is a lack of attention to the needs of
people with cognitive or learning disabilities. The guidelines also fail to address learner-
centred design of online courseware. There is also a paucity of advice available specifically
aimed at the design and development of accessible educational courseware for academic
developers.

A set of guidelines was required which are specifically tailored to learning and teaching in
higher education and to Web-based learning resources in particular. These guidelines
needed to incorporate details of potential barriers to access, practical examples for
implementation of accessible solutions and reference to the related W3C guidelines..

This paper presents a case study of best practice in the development of courses in WebCT
(and also has generic application), taking account of the needs of people with a wide range
of special needs. Rather then focus on particular categories of disability, the approach is to
consider the components and design issues concerned with the development of courseware
in terms of the difficulties that students with disabilities might face in accessing them.
Addressing those issues has provided a blueprint for online courseware development that
represents not only a design strategy for people with special needs but is equally applicable
to learner-centred courseware design in general.

The partners

This project is a collaboration between the Special Needs Computing Research Unit
(SNCRU) of the University of Teesside and the Educational Development and
Technology Centre (EDTeC) of the University of New South Wales. It has been supported
by a Study Abroad Fellowship from The Leverhulme Trust, UK. Members of the SNCRU
have carried out extensive research and development in the application of computer
technology for people with physical and learning disabilities and the senior author of this
paper provided the research expertise in this area. Current research interests within
SNCRU include development of a symbols-based managed learning environment for
students with severe disabilities; assessment, remediation and development of language in
children with special educational needs; and investigation of Autistic Spectrum disorders.

The Educational Development and Technology Centre (http:llwww.edtecunsw.edu.au)
provides services in the promotion and development of institution-wide support for online
learning using WebCT. Part of EDTeC's remit is to investigate means of making education
more accessible, through technology, to people with disabilities. The centre's support
enables teaching staff to develop online learning environments for themselves. As of
March 2002 there were more than 600 courses online with more than 21,000 students
enrolled on those courses.

19



Elaine }. Pearson and Tony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

Some definitions
Accessible design in this context refers to the means by which the content and presentation
of an online educational experience enables participation by every student regardless of
the browser, browser settings or assistive technology they may be using. The goal should be
to enable, as far as possible, the same educational experience for everyone. One should
recognize, however, that it may be impossible to cater for all needs, all of the time, but care
needs to be taken to provide alternatives when particular needs cannot be met.

Assistive technology can be defined as devices, tools, hardware or software that enable
people with disabilities to use the computer. Screen readers, screen magnifiers, alternative
keyboards or input devices, voice recognition software and text-only browsers are some of
the main examples of assistive technology.

Inclusion refers to the design of educational environments to take account of the needs of
all learners, providing access to a learning experience at a pace and level to suit the learner.
Online learning presents opportunities for more inclusive education through the 'just in
time, just for me' approach - offering flexibility in the time, place, mode and pace of
learning (Collis and Moonan, 2001).

Evaluation methodology
As part of its mission to encourage inclusive practices in educational development, EDTeC
aims to encourage staff developing courses in WebCT (designers) to attain, in the first
instance, compliance with Priority Level One of the W3C Web accessibility guidelines.
Priority One means that the designer is satisfying the basic requirements for access to Web
documents (W3C). This is in line with WebCTs own stated aim (WebCTand Accessibility,
http:llwww. webct. com/service/).

In order to identify the accessibility problems related to the design of courses delivered
through an online learning environment, and to propose solutions, an evaluation was
carried out of existing courses at UNSW, with the consent of the designers concerned. The
process involved a combined qualitative and quantitative approach including:

• extensive evaluation of WebCT courses developed at UNSW;

• discussion with and survey of designers;

• interviews with students with disabilities; and

• practical evaluation by students of the accessibility of courses using assistive
technologies.

The evaluation was based on the guidelines provided by W3C 'Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0'; analysis of the courses using the Bobby Web site validation tool; testing
with other available checking mechanisms (for example, graphics turned off and monitor
set to high contrast); and also with regard to courseware design methods.

The W3C guidelines are produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative and
provide a guide to ensuring the accessibility of functional aspects of a Web site. There are
fourteen guidelines or general principles, each with a set of checkpoints, and the rationale

20



ALT-] Volume 10 Number 2

behind each guideline. Web Bobby is a tool which provides a crude but indicative analysis,
allowing the designer to check the extent to which their courseware has met the criteria of
the W3C guidelines.

However, evaluation of a learning environment which takes account of the requirements of
those with sensory and learning disabilities also requires analysis of the structure,
presentation, content and navigational aspects. For this the principles of learner-centred
courseware design (Figure 1) were employed. A model of courseware design that combines
content design, navigational design and visual design but is informed at all stages by the
learner model (Pearson and Green, 1999) is the one on which this evaluation is based.

Briefly, the model incorporates content (design of learning materials and activities),
navigational design (flow of control and structure), visual modelling (user interface, icons,
graphics) and, crucially, learner modelling (who the learner is, what the learning needs are,
how the learner will learn, the aims and learning objectives).

Visual
Design

/

Content
Design

i

\ r

Learner
Model

\

\

\

Navigation
Design

Figure I: A model ofleamer<entred courseware design (adapted from Pearson and Green, 1999)

A set of evaluation criteria combining the W3C guidelines and aspects of learner-centred
courseware design was developed. The evaluation criteria were also informed by the results
of interviews with a group of students. They were asked about the assistive technology they
use, their experiences in accessing the Web and WebCT for learning resources, the
difficulties they encountered and the benefits of online learning for them. The resulting set
of seventeen checkpoints represents an instrument that is specifically aimed at evaluation
of online learning environments as opposed to Web sites in general. Questions included:

• Is the content including page organization, headings and lists consistent?

• Are navigational elements consistent and well structured, do icons and pictorial images
make sense?

• Is the content structured in usable chunks, avoiding excessive scrolling and are longer
documents organized with links to sections and subsections?

- —



Elaine J. Pearson and Tony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

• Are learning materials presented in an accessible format, and if not, are alternatives
provided?

• Is the material accessible to assistive technologies (screen readers, speech recognition
software, text browsers, keyboard input, etc.)?

Course evaluation

Thirty WebCT courses were investigated. The evaluation was carried out to determine, in
particular, the level of accessibility for students with sensory or cognitive disabilities.
Attention was paid to the structure, content, navigational design, communication facilities
and compatibility of WebCT with assistive technologies such as screen readers, dictation
software and browser settings. The issues raised from an evaluation of the courses
investigated and from the interviews of students with disabilities enable the results to be
presented in two categories: generic and WebCT-specif\c considerations.

Students' comments
Students' comments have been largely integrated into the results presented below, but some
specific examples have been selected here to illustrate some of the problems faced by
people with different disabilities in accessing courses.

A student with dyslexia found the home page problematic on one course. He relies on the
use of visual cues in remembering structure:

The icons are too small, too complicated and the text links contain too many words. I
don't know what these icons mean (a wand for evaluation, man at work for
assignments), they are not memorable and with the long text links I wouldn't remember
where elements of the course belong. Also the background is too busy and interferes
with the information I'm trying to look at.

A student with rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes (which can cause eyesight problems) had
problems with contrast, PDF documents and long scrolling documents:

The Welcome screen is orange/yellow background, red text; the colour contrast makes it
difficult to read. The colours used in the Course outline document are also difficult
(orange/yellow with black text) - it blurs when I try to read it. Plain black text on white
background is best. There are long scrolling text documents - 1 would find it confusing
and tedious to scroll through all this text to find a particular piece of information. I want
to be able to home in on a particular section without going through it all every time.

A student with severe nystagmus and very low reading vision had problems with PDF
documents and with the discussion and chat functions:

The online readings (PDF) are too small and the typeface is poor. It is too difficult to
read. I would need dictation software to access the chat or discussion areas, but it
doesn't seem to work with the chat tool, so it would be useless to me.

A totally blind student found navigating through the WebCT interface tedious, but his
main problem was with learning materials presented in an inaccessible format.

22



ALT-J Volume 10 Number 2

As a law student, I find it particularly frustrating when many of the papers I need are in
PDF format, also Powerpoint slides are no use to me online, nor other read-only formats. I
cannot use online chat easily because the conversation moves on too quickly for me to read.

Evaluation results - generic
The analysis of generic issues represents elements of courseware design which are a result
of the methods, structure, design and presentation of materials by the designer that may
pose difficulties in accessing the learning environment for students with disabilities. These
generic issues are not because of any constraints imposed by WebCT itself. The following
were the major problems encountered.

Inconsistent and inappropriate use of icons or graphics
Many students with learning disabilities rely on pictorial cues for navigation or
understanding learning objects.

No text equivalents for graphics, figures or other illustrations
This can be a problem for people with vision impairments who rely on screen readers to
interpret visual elements in a text format.

Poor organization of content
There is a general design issue here in the tendency towards 'shovelware' - content
intended for traditional delivery is merely uploaded for online delivery. The result is large
amounts of scrollable text which is difficult to manage and material which is not 'chunked'
for manageability. There is also a tendency not to take advantage of some of the features of
Web CT for organization of content.

The widespread use of PDF file formats for the presentation of text documents
This is a major problem. PDF files cannot always be interpreted by screen reading
software. For students with vision impairments for whom the traditional library is totally
unusable, the presentation of documents online can be a huge benefit. The latest version of
Adobe Acrobat Reader (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatlsolutionsacc.html) pro-
vides an accessible solution, provided the document has been created in the first place in an
accessible format. However, documents scanned and saved as graphic image files before
conversion to PDF remain inaccessible. There are similar problems with other documents
including PowerPoint presentations or movies created in Macromedia Flash.

Text may not be correctly or accurately interpreted by screen readers
This can present problems not just to vision-impaired students but also to those who have
difficulty in reading, interpreting or understanding text or complex language. Words in
capitals may be read as individual letters, abbreviations may not be recognized, and unusual
characters are interpreted literally; for example, the symbol ~ when used as a line separator,
will be read as 'Tilda, tilda, tilda, tilda...' for as many times as the symbol appears.

The use of tables can be a problem for people with disabilities
Because screen reading software reads the information across cells, without appropriate
table header descriptions and careful use of layout, the contents of the table makes no
sense to the learner.

Poor interface design
While designers may wish to customize their courses to reflect the individual academic and

—



Elaine J. Pearson and Tony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

course, inappropriate use of foreground and background colours and contrast can make
an interface hard to distinguish, read or interpret for people with visual, perceptual or
spatial difficulties. Similarly the use of colour to convey important information and
inconsistent use of icons can make access difficult for people with vision impairments or
learning disabilities.

Evaluation results- WebCTspecific
Whilst it is WebCT's stated aim to meet level one compliance with the W3C accessibility
guidelines, some problems remain. The problems identified are not unique to this study
{http:liwww.webct.com/wywlViewContent7contentID-262793T) and the WebCT designers'
online discussion forum (http://www.webct.com/webctlforum/topics?discussion=7816&topic
=21849) has been helpful in highlighting the efforts of others in this regard. In seeking to
provide designers with guidelines for inclusive design, it is important to distinguish
between features that are subject to their own design decisions, and those factors that are
attributable to the WebCT environment. The main problems encountered to date with
features of the WebCT environment are:

There is no text equivalent for some icons in the icon library; some titles and headings are
graphics without text equivalents
This is a problem for those using screen reading software. Also the headings cannot be
disabled, making it cumbersome for those using screen readers or with slow modem
connections.

The use of tables can be a problem
Just as outlined above, tables need to be properly defined to ensure that screen readers can
interpret the information they contain.

The overuse of frames
In some instances, it has been reported that up to seven frames may be open on a screen at
one time. Once again, this can be confusing for those who rely on screen reading software.

The use of Applets and Java for the implementation of some of the interactive elements of
WebCT, including chat windows, discussion groups, the whiteboard and email
This means that they cannot be accessed by students using dictation software, and presents
a barrier to those for whom text entry and other forms of communication are difficult.
Synchronous chat is very difficult for people who have problems entering text or reading
quickly enough. Students complain that the conversation has moved on before they have
the opportunity to respond.

We would hope that these issues will be resolved in future versions of WebCT. In any case,
many course designers will be using current and earlier versions for some time.

Staff perceptions
A short survey was carried out of staff at UNSW who are engaged in the development of
online courses to determine their views on and awareness of issues of accessibility to online
learning, and to confirm the results of informal discussions with six course developers. The
questionnaire was distributed as part of a larger survey via WebCT to a hundred course
designers at UNSW, which generated twenty responses.

24



ALT-] Volume 10 Number 2

Academics at UNSW build whole courses themselves, with support from EDTeC in
instructional design, the use of WebCT, and specialist graphics, audio and video services.
Discussions with staff reveal that for those who have developed their first course in
WebCT, the main concern has been to get material online with limited instructional design
support and restricted timescales. Some are not sure whether they have students with
disabilities on their course, and are often not aware of the techniques and design methods
that would make their courses inclusive. However, having successfully developed a course,
the academics are keen to incorporate inclusive design into the new courses they are
developing.

The survey results support the anecdotal evidence. A total of 15 per cent of respondents
could confirm that there were students with disabilities enrolled on their WebCT courses,
while 45 per cent believed they had no students with disabilities and 30 per cent were not
sure. There are a number of reasons why staff do not believe or are not sure if they have
students with disabilities. It could be a lack of awareness of disability by academics;
students may not be registered as having a disability - especially if they have a learning
difficulty; students may be reluctant to identify themselves as having a disability; or they
may not be aware themselves that they have a disability. This final point is particularly true
of some students with specific learning difficulties (such as dyslexia). Students might
identify themselves to the Equity and Diversity Unit only if they believe they require
particular assistance.

Staff were asked to indicate the type of disability their students have. This revealed that a
range of disabilities is encountered: learning/physical disability, physical/ sensory disability
and sensory disability. When asked if they had been able to take account of learners with
disabilities in the design of their WebCT courses, 45 per cent believed that they had, 5 per
cent said they had not, and 50 per cent did not know. However, 55 per cent of designers
also expressed an interest in receiving training in the design of inclusive courses.

Discussion and outcomes

Guidelines
Ideally, the needs of learners with disabilities should be addressed at the design stage rather
than attempting to retrofit solutions. While existing courses can be improved, through
training, awareness and support, designers can create courses that meet the needs of most
of their learners most of the time.

A structured approach is required to help academics develop accessible courseware. At a
general level, staff should be encouraged to use the available features of the learning
environment effectively. This would help in the structuring of the environment and in
making the transition from traditional to online learning. Staff awareness needs to be
raised of the available guidelines (such as W3C), checking facilities (Bobby), and software
development support (such as Macromedia's accessibility extension for Dreamweaver Four
and UltraDev for checking the validity of Web pages as they are created). Above all,
designers also need support in developing learner-centred courseware (Harper and
Hedberg, 1997).

The findings of the investigation have been distilled into a set of guidelines (Pearson and
Koppi, 2001) for academic designers of courses in WebCT, but which are generally

25



Elaine J. Pearson andTony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

applicable to all Web-based learning environments. The guidelines take the form of
checkpoints, with advice, hints, practical examples and techniques for implementation - a
'how to' guide. The guidelines are available from http://www.edtecunsw.edu.au. This form
of guidelines (which relate to those of W3C) is more useful to academic staff than the
technical W3C guidelines which are not specifically aimed at the academic designer of
online learning environments. The checkpoints employed by these guidelines are
summarized as follows:

• ensure consistent and appropriate use of graphics, icons and other visual cues;

• ensure all graphics, figures, and other illustrations include a text equivalent;

• organize content to take account of the transition to an online environment;

• use the features provided by WebCT to organize and structure course content;

• make PDF and other read-only file formats accessible;

• be aware of the limitations of screen readers in interpreting unusual text, characters
and abbreviations;

• ensure that tables are carefully and appropriately used;

• ensure appropriate use of colours and contrasts in screen design;

• provide alternative sources of information for video or audio.

Each checkpoint includes:

• an explanation of its relevance to accessibility;

• advice and practical examples illustrating how to implement the checkpoints using
WebCT and Dreamweaver (the predominant Web authoring software available to
academics at UNSW and UoT);

• referential links to further information where appropriate;

• a reference for each checkpoint to the relevant W3C guideline(s).

The document includes a second section which advises the designer on methods of
checking their courses and resources for accessibility including using the available checking
tools, simple manual checking methods and reference to EDTeC's 'Quality Teaching
Principles and Guidelines' {http:llwww.edtecunsw.edu.au) for more advice on design issues.

Dissemination and future work
These guidelines were developed for staff at UNSW and others using the WebCT
environment - but they have universal application. There is clearly a demand for similar
more generic guidelines across the academic community and there is scope for further
related work. The University of Teesside is beginning to implement BlackBoard as the
environment to support online learning. Since WebCT and BlackBoard are currently two of
the most popular commercially available online learning environments worldwide, the
guidelines will be extended to include specific advice for users of BlackBoard as well as
WebCT.

We intend to carry out a detailed evaluation of the guidelines and their effectiveness in

26



ALT-J Volume 10 Number 2

assisting the academic in inclusive course design and development. Other academics and
institutions are encouraged to use the guidelines in the development of their own courses,
and their feedback will be sought in developing and extending the guidelines.

In response to the results of the survey, which indicated a need for training in accessible
design, we have developed a series of training workshops to give staff hands on experience
of assistive technologies and practice in accessible design. Initially these workshops form
part of the UNSW suite of training workshops. They will then be extended to the
University of Teesside as they develop their support program for BlackBoard, and
subsequently to other centres and universities.

In addition, we have developed an online course, based on the guidelines, in accessible
course design which is being used in the professional staff development program at UNSW
and also as a postgraduate module at UoT.

Conclusion
At the end of this stage of the project, we have been able to present an analysis of the
problems encountered by students with disabilities in the use of Web-based learning. As a
result of this analysis, a set of proposals for the design of online courseware that is
accessible not just to those with disabilities, but to all students, has been developed. These
proposals have been distilled into practical guidelines presented in a 'user-friendly' manner
for academics who simply want to get their courses online in the most efficient and
accessible way. The next stage has been the development of workshops and an online
course in accessible design which build on the guidelines and provide the opportunity for a
better understanding of issues, techniques and tools in accessible design.

The key to accessible courseware is to take a learner-centred design approach, one which
takes account of the needs of the learner. Although one cannot expect always to meet all
the needs of every learner, reasonable steps can be taken to ensure the widest participation.
Even if we are not meeting the needs of all potential users we should be aware of exactly
who we might be excluding. Designing for inclusion provides the opportunity to develop
accessible courses for all students, and the move to online learning prompts us to improve
our teaching and learning practices for all our students.

Acknowledgements

This project has been supported by a Study Abroad Fellowship from the Leverhulme
Trust, UK.

References
Bates, A. W. (2000), Managing Technological Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collis, B. and Moonan, J. (2001), Flexible Learning in a Digital World, London: Kogan
Page.

Harper, B. and Hedberg, J. (1997), 'Creating motivating interactive learning environments',
Paper presented at the ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 7-10 December. http://www.ascilite.
org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Harper/Harper.html, URL last accessed Jan. 2001.

27



Elaine J. Pearson and Tony Koppi Inclusion and online opportunities: designing for accessibility

Leung, P., Owens, J., Lamb, G., Smith, K., Shaw, J., and Hauff, R. (1999), Assistive
Technology: Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities in Post-Secondary Education,
Insititute of Disability Studies, Deakin University, 99/6.

Pearson, E. J. and Green, S. J. (1999), 'Courseware engineering or design', Association For
Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C), Bristol.

Pearson, E. J. and Koppi, A. J. (2001), 'Guidelines for accessible online courses', internal
publication, University of New South Wales, http://www.edtec.unsw.edu.au.

'Adobe Acrobat Five', http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/solutionsacc.html, URL last
accessed 3 April 2002.

CAST 'Bobby Worldwide', http://www.cast.org/bobby/, URL last accessed 3 April 2002.

'Consultations on the Draft Disability Standards in Education', http://www.deet.gov.au/
archive/iae/analysis/ddaedcon.htm, URL last accessed 3 April 2002.

'Disability on the Agenda', http://www.disability.gov.uk/index.html, last updated 6 July
2001, URL last accessed 3 April 2002.

'Quick Tips to Make Accessible Web Sites', http://www.genasys.usm.maine.edu/access.htm,
URL last accessed 3 April 2002.

'Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Education Reform',
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/section504.ada.peer.htm, PEER, URL last accessed 3 April
2002.

'Some Thoughts on Accessibility and Universal Design', http://www.webct.com/wyw/
ViewContent?contentID=2627931, Stephen Rehberg, Georgia State University, URL last
accessed 3 April 2002.

'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0', http://www.w3.org/WAUResources/#gl, URL
last accessed 3 April 2002.

'WebCT discussion forum on accessibility', http://www.webct.com/webct/forum/
topics?discussion=7816&topic=21849, URL last accessed 3 April 2002.

28