The Ministerial Advisory Council on Public
Libraries published the discussion paper “Tomorrow’s Library” in an effort to gauge
public opinion concerning the future public libraries in the state of Victoria before the end of May, 2012.
The paper discussed some pressing concerns for public Libraries and those who
use them. Such concerns include the development of official collection
standards, the education of the library workforce and the changing needs of library buildings. All of these concerns are relevant to the way that digital
library services are used by library patrons.
While the paper does discuss the problem of
equitable access to library services, this is limited the scope of access for
Victorian citizens across the board. There is no mention of providing equitable levels of
service for individuals, including those with low literacy, disabilities, older
adults and those who do not speak English as their first language. The visible
lack of discussion about equitable access is concerning.
As
the paper mentions, public library buildings and public library
collections are designed to be used by all patrons, including those with
disabilities. Why then aren't digital library services also designed for
equitable access? This concept, known as ‘Design for All,’ ‘eInclusion’ or
‘eAccessibility’ can be defined as “a single resource that can be accessed and
effectively used by every person on the planet.” (Ball, 2008, p. 26) It has been argued that the lapse in provision
of digital services to the public is in part due to narrowly focussed ICT and
LIS programs. (Eskins & Craven, 2008)
Equitable access does not exist because those who make and administer the
services are simply not aware of the shortfall, in spite of the fact that it
remains a legal requirement worldwide.
The American Foundation for the Blind found
that Blogger for example, is not an appropriately accessible service primarily
because of the platform’s reliance on CAPTCHA, a sentiment previously noted byW3 (American Foundation For The Blind, 2011; May,
2005). In asking students to use the Blogger platform as part of their
assessment, Charles Sturt University is inadvertently discriminating against
visually impaired students. This contravenes the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act, 1992;
(2A) It is unlawful for an education provider to
discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability:
(a) by developing curricula or training courses
having a content that will either exclude the person from participation, or
subject the person to any other detriment; or
(b) by accrediting curricula or training courses
having such a content.
The point here is that ‘Design for All,’ ‘eInclusion’
and ‘eAccessibiliy’ are terms that are frequently discussed and concepts that
are frequently mandated. They are however, almost never enforced.
Examples of the lack of enforcement include
the 2006 Riga Declaration by the European Union, which found that only 3% of
public websites complied with the minimum accessibility standards set by the WebContent Accessibility Guidelines. Subsequent research in
2007 and again in 2009 indicated that despite legal requirements, little had
changed in terms of equitable access. Websites for public libraries in Australia don’t fare much
better. In her 2011 analysis of public libraries in Western Australia, Vivian
Conway determined that “None of the 29 websites audited met even the most basic
criteria,” and “In the manual checklist, only one library achieved a grade of
18 out of 18.” (Conway, 2011, p. 108) Compliance
with WCAG has been mandated in Australia for more than a decade and yet
accessibility remains unenforced.
The digital environment does not exist
solely for the benefit of those who can hear and see well, read, and speak
English as a first language. It is unethical to limit public resources and
information in this way. Equity and a ‘fair go’ are principles fundamental to
Australian identity. If the Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries
truly wants to foster “social inclusion, participation in the local community
[and] lifelong learning and literacy,” (MAC, 2012, p. 2) it should strongly recommend the enforcement of WCAG 2.0 standards. This
would open up digital library resources for all Australians, regardless of
ability.
References
American Foundation For The
Blind. (2011). Is Blogging Accessible to People with Vision Loss? The American Foundation for the Blind
Answers Retrieved 12/12/2012, from http://www.afb.org/section.aspx?SectionID=57&DocumentID=2753
Ball, S. (2008). Design for All
- how web accessibility affects different peoople. In J. Craven (Ed.), Web Accessibility (pp. 25-40). London:
Facet Publishing.
Conway, V. (2011). Website
accessibility in Western Australian public libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 60(2), 103-112.
Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L.,
Boussios, T., Dolphin, C., & Meyer, I. (2009). Study on “Web accessibility
in European countries: level of compliance with latest international
accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0, and approaches or plans to
implement those specifications”. Bonn: European Commission.
Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L.,
& Meyer, I. (2007). Assessment of the Status of eAccessibility in Europe:
Executive Summary MeAC - Measuring
Progress of eAccessibility in Europe. Bonn: European Commission.
Eskins, R., & Craven, J.
(2008). Desing for All in the Library and information science curriculum. In J.
Craven (Ed.), Web Accessibility (pp.
113-126). Londen: Facet Publishing.
Disability Discrimination Act, 1992, Commonwealth of Australia (2011).
May, M. (2005). Inaccessibility
of CAPTCHA Alternatives to Visual Turing Tests on the Web. W3C Working Group Note
Retrieved 12/12/2012, from http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries (2012) Tomorrow's Library: Discussion Paper. State Government of Victoria. Available at http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/95283/Tomorrows-Library-Discussion-Paper.pdf
Ministerial Declaration: ICT
for an inclusive society (2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment