Using Universal Design to Minimize Accessibility Barriers in Distance Learning

Lori R. Austill, M.S.Ed.
Idaho State University
austlori@isu.edu

Abstract: Although the ultimate goal of distance learning is to make education available to anyone, anywhere, anytime, this goal cannot be realized unless distance learning materials are designed to be accessible to all potential students, including those with mobility, visual, hearing, speech and learning disabilities. This paper examines the legal standards and guidelines established for the provision of accessibility to information technologies; addresses some of the barriers that need to be overcome such as online content formatting and faculty buy-in; and presents solutions such as planning, the incorporation of universal design principles, adoption of accessibility guidelines and standards, and training for faculty and staff.

Introduction

	The introduction of technology and the Internet into higher education has created new opportunities for people with disabilities who might otherwise find it difficult or even impossible to travel to a physical location to attend class (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Avacek defined distance education as “institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunication systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors” (2012, p. 32). Simonson et al. emphasized that in distance education, learners chose when and where to learn and when and where to access instructional materials (2012). The 2012 Survey of Online Learning conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group found that the number of students taking at least one online class is over 6.7 million (Allen & Seaman, 2013). This means that thirty-two percent of higher education students are now taking at least one online course which according to Allen and Seaman is an all-time high (2013). However, in spite of its potential benefits, technology has also created a unique set of problems that interfere with its effective use. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2011 that there is an estimated thirty-seven million people with hearing, vision, cognitive, and other disabilities. An additional study conducted in 2011 by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project reported that two percent of American adults said they have a disability or illness that made it harder or impossible for them to use the Internet.
Anderson, Burgstahler, Lewis, and Slatin (2008) emphasized that there is no single way to increase the use of accessible technology on campus, but by securing the support of high-level administrators, involving key stakeholders, adopting guidelines and standards, and providing training and technical support the barriers can be minimized. Four stakeholder groups who should be involved in the process of providing accessibility are: the students; service providers of disability services to the campus community; professors who use information technologies in their courses; and the administrators who put a priority on the use of technology on campus (Fichten et al., 2009). 
	Accessible design of instructional technology is the electronic equivalent to curb cuts in sidewalks, meaning that accessible design considers the full spectrum of user abilities at the design stage, and as a result, e-learning products are accessible to all individuals regardless of their ability and/or learning style (Anderson et al., 2008). Lazar and Jaeger maintained that we must embrace a new approach to public policy with regard to information technology that will help to eliminate the virtual barriers that have been inadvertently built against people with disabilities (2011).

Thesis

	Although the online learning environment can pose potential accessibility barriers in a variety of ways for persons with disabilities, the purposeful integration of guidelines and universal instructional design principles by key stakeholders into distance learning materials will insure equal access to all students regardless of their ability or learning style.

Legal Standards and Guidelines

The United States has one of the most comprehensive policies for Internet accessibility and the clearest course of guidance for creating accessible technology; however holes in the existing policies are often exploited in order to ignore the needs of people with disabilities (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). According to Edmonds (2004), there is no single law or court decision that requires educational institutions to provide distance learning material in a format that is accessible to students with disabilities. Edmonds pointed out that instead of specific legislation, there is a patchwork of federal and state laws, some of which were passed before the advent of the Internet, which can be applied to information technology in various ways (2004). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibit entities, including institutions of higher education from discriminating against individuals with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2006). A 1998 amendment to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that the U.S. federal government adhere to standards developed by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to ensure that electronic and information technologies procured, developed, or used by agencies and departments of the federal government are accessible to employees and members of the general public with disabilities (Anderson et al., 2008). Burgstahler (2006) interpreted this to mean that distance learning courses offered via the Internet should be made accessible by law to qualified individuals with disabilities. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) developed the Web Accessibility Initiative with the mission to lead the Web to its full potential to provide equal access and enable all people with disabilities to participate on the Web. As a result of this initiative, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) were updated in 2008 to provide clear directions on how to make web content that is accessible to people with disabilities. The WCAG 2.0 Guidelines (2008) listed four principles that should be incorporated into the design of web-based content: perceivable with the provision of alternative formats; operable with all functionality available from a keyboard and content that is easy to navigate and user friendly; information is presented clearly and logically; and robust with maximized compatibility with assistive technologies. These standards that were guided by universal design principles can be used as a model for educational institutions that have chosen to incorporate them into their accessibility policies (Anderson et al., 2008). The challenges lie in the ambiguity of how Section 508 standards should be implemented, getting faculty and staff buy-in, and overcoming technical problems (Burgstahler et al., 2004). 
According to Lazar and Jaeger (2011), recent studies of the accessibility of U.S. government websites found that major access barriers exist in at least ninety percent of the sites even though they are supposed to have been accessible for nearly a decade under the law. Government websites are not the only offenders - recently advocates for students with print-related disabilities initiated legal action against major universities due to limited accessibility to technology used in courses and email systems that was not compatible with screen-reading technology (Devine, 2012). In June 2010, the Department of Education and Justice issued a joint statement to educational institutions to say that the use of inaccessible e-book readers and similar devices was a violation of both the ADA and Section 508 (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). This statement did not prohibit the use of e-book readers and mobile devices, but obligated educational institutions to ensure that students and faculty with disabilities are not being excluded (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). The threat of potential legal repercussions should only serve to spur institutions to forge ahead with the implementation of information technologies that will work toward improving access to students with disabilities (Devine, 2012). It is equally important not to place the burden on people with disabilities to enforce their rights by monitoring accessibility and bringing complaints and claims against agencies that violate accessibility laws (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). Educational institutions using technology for instruction need to be accountable and insure that their course materials and technology are fully accessible so that no person is left behind as a result of a disability (Devine, 2012). Burgstahler (2006) suggested that there are several conditions that make accessibility an important topic in distance learning such as the consideration that it may be unethical to bar eligible participants from program access because of their disability, and that legislation mandates accessibility accommodations to qualified people with disabilities. Other considerations are that the application of universal design principles to promote accessibility is considered to be a best practice by instructional designers, and costly redesign may be required when a student with a disability enrolls in a course that has inaccessible features (Burgstahler, 2006).

Barriers to Accessibility

	Assistive technology makes it possible for people with just about any type of disability to operate computers, but inaccessible design of electronic materials can erect barriers even with the use of assistive technology (Burgstahler, 2006). In a study conducted by Fichten et al. students with disabilities were surveyed and the top issues identified were the inaccessibility of websites and course management systems, technical difficulties with hardware and software, poor use of e-learning tools by professors, difficulty connecting to websites and course management systems, and students’ overall lack of knowledge on how to use the course management system (2009). The technical solutions for accessibility already exist, but the challenge is to disseminate knowledge and enforce compliance (Lazar & Jaeger, 2011).

Inaccessible Course Content

	Use of the Internet creates the promise of transforming curriculum and instruction but it is especially prone to inaccessibility simply due to the lack of awareness on the part of many web-site and course material creators (Kalivoda & Totty, 2003). 
A few of the specific issues that make course content  inaccessible are: image based portable document files and lack of appropriate text tags on graphics, links, forms, or tables which prevent the use of screen reading software; audio and video clips without captioning, and interactive Web chats that limit those with hearing impairments; web pages with confusing structuring, a cluttered layout, and buttons and links that are too small which cause problems for people with motor impairments; and fixed font size of materials, online maps and images with no alternate text identifiers (Fichten et al., 2009; Lazar & Jaeger, 2011). The standards for HTML accessibility provided by the federal Section 508 regulations are fairly easy to use and cover such issues as software applications and operating systems; web-based information and applications; telecommunications products; video or multimedia products; and desktop and portable computers (Gornitsky, 2011). 

Faculty Buy-in

	In the Department of Education’s Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities report (2011) it was found that often it becomes the unsympathetic professor’s responsibility to provide assistive technologies and supplemental material and therefore many students do not receive the services they need. In some situations, even though steps are being taken by the institution such as the development of policies and procedures, and the availability of trained disability and instructional design staff to assure that accessibility issues are considered when courses are being developed, it can be a challenge to secure faculty and staff  buy-in (Burgstahler, Corrigan, & McCarter, 2007). To illustrate the attitude of some instructors, Anderson et al. (2008) provided an example of a faculty member who made extensive use of visual material on an instructional site who felt that compliance should not be required because in his opinion, it did not make sense for students who were blind to take such a course in the first place. This example pointed to one of the fundamental barriers when it comes to buy-in – the issue of social and cultural attitudes toward disability that must be addressed in order to achieve full inclusion (Anderson et al., 2008). It is the responsibility of every player in the higher education landscape from the administrators to faculty to ensure that all students can reap the benefits of technology and have access to the best education possible (Devine, 2011).

Solutions
Planning

	Burgstahler contended that planning for access as e-learning materials are being developed is potentially easier and more cost effective than quickly developing accommodation strategies each time a student with a disability enrolls in a course (2006). The U.S. Department of Justice’s report on Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility (2000) revealed that the biggest challenge posed by section 508 is the need for coordination between the technologists creating content and those with knowledge of disability access issues. The report went on to advise that as more programs and services are placed online, the content creators must be vigilant to ensure that they are not inadvertently creating barriers for people with disabilities. Lazar and Jaeger (2011) also emphasized that when web content is designed to be accessible from the beginning, there are no additional costs involved; but if the content has already been designed, the amount of time and money required to retro-fit it for accessibility depend on the size and technical nature of the material. Burgstahler (2006) explained that incorporating universal design into instructional materials is the process of making decisions while a course is being developed to assure that it is accessible to potential students with a wide range of abilities, disabilities, learning styles, and other characteristics.

Incorporation of Universal Design Principles

What Is Universal Design? 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 defined Universal Design for Learning as an educational practice that provides flexibility in the ways that information is presented, the methods by which students demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the provision of appropriate accommodations and supports (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2011). The concept of universal design was developed by a group of professionals in multiple disciplines to ensure that the design of products and environments are accessible by the widest range of individuals possible (Lee & Templeton, 2008). Distance learning course designers must consider characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, native language, and levels of ability to hear, see, move, and speak when creating learning environments (Burgstahler et al., 2004). 
Burgstahler et al. pointed out that in general, providing multiple formats to e-learning content addresses the needs of students with a variety of learning styles and abilities and often results in cleaner, better functioning resources (2004). The National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education (2013) which is under the leadership of the University of Washington oversees the searchable knowledge base, AccessIT (www.washington.edu/accessit) which provides information on topics such as how to make a portable document file accessible, standards and guidelines for providing audio captions, making data tables accessible, developing web-based forms and much more and is an indispensable resource for designers of e-learning content.

Examples of Best Practices in Universal Design

Universal instructional design best practices can be integrated into course content by being mindful and incorporating the following suggestions. With regard to assisting those with sight impairments that use screen reader software: all images should be annotated with descriptive text; all pages on a website should utilize the same primary navigation structure and whenever possible, links are written to make sense out of the context; and that links do not open in pop-up windows but instead navigate the user to a new page (Burgstahler, 2006). For individuals with limited hand function, a learning disability, or sight impairments, synchronous communication tools may pose a problem and therefore other options for group communication such as e-mail, asynchronous discussion forums, or the use of a product like Elluminate Live that provides captioning and keyboard access may need to be used (Burgstahler, 2006; Gornitsky, 2011). Including synchronized captioning for video and audio resources provides access to students with hearing impairments or may help students understand an instructor whose speech is not easily legible or differs from the students’ primary language (Edmonds, 2004). Web pages should be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker or flash which may cause seizers for people with photosensitive epilepsy (Edmonds, 2004) and color should be used in foreground and background combinations with contrast in both color and brightness and should not be used as a method to communicate information, such as labeling certain fields in red (AccessIT, 2013). According to the Access E-Learning tutorials created by the Center for Assistive Technologies and Environmental Access at Georgia Tech (2003-2006) on making PowerPoint slides and Word documents accessible, text-based resources should be formatted using HTML coding so that they are easy to navigate and screen readers can scan the page to look for section headings. Tables are especially problematic for people using screen readers and should be formatted with appropriate headers using HTML code to ensure that the data are associated with the correct headers (Gornitsky, 2011). Gornitsky recommended that content developers use software programs such as Microsoft Word that include accessibility checkers within their toolsets, or a free product like WebAIM’s WAVE (www.wave.webaim.org) which checks web pages for compliance with the guidelines of Section 508 and WCAG (2011).

Flexibility in the Presentation of Materials

Johnson and Fox (2003) encouraged instructors to be adaptable and respond to learner differences by developing flexible means of representing materials, allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge in varying ways such as an oral report instead of a written paper, and to engage students through a variety of methods, with the understanding that all of these methods use techniques and approaches that are good for all students regardless of their ability or learning style.

Steps Toward the Incorporation of Accessibility Into Distance Learning

Gornitsky (2011) emphasized that if a proactive approach is taken toward designing courses for accessibility using principles of universal design, more doors can open for students looking to take advantage of the growth in distance learning. By incorporating these principles at the outset of course design, the focus is taken off of disabilities and put on the importance of creating a respectful, welcoming, and inclusive educational environment for all students which is a philosophy consistent with universal instructional design principles (Myers & Bastian, 2010). 
	The first step that an instructor should take in planning for accessibility is to take an inventory of the course materials and content that he/she intends to use in a course to get a complete picture of what will need to be done to make the materials accessible to as many students as possible (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2003-2006). 
	The second step is to gain the knowledge and training necessary to make the course materials and content accessible (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2003-2006). There are online resources such as the Access E-Learning tutorial that provides material in a modular format so that instructors and content designers can get the information and training they need without having to read a large amount of technical content (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2003-2006). The National Center on Universal Design for Learning also provides an extensive online collection of rich media presentations that can help educators develop the skills they need to incorporate best practices for accessibility into their course materials (2013). The Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access also suggests that instructors gain knowledge of accessibility issues by talking to students with disabilities and working with the disability support services on their campus (2003-2006). 
The third step toward incorporating accessibility into distance learning is to determine the amount of time that will be needed to make the material in the course inventory accessible and to budget sufficient time at the beginning of the course development to ensure ample opportunity to create or retro-fit course materials, documents, and learning activities (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2003-2006).

Adoption of Accessibility Guidelines and Standards

	As directed in the Access E-Learning tutorial (2003-2006), in order to have an impact on a large number of courses across campus and to provide access to the majority of students, institutions need to develop effective policies for information technology accessibility. In a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics and conducted by Waits and Lewis (2003), only 18% of universities using websites for distance education courses followed established guidelines for accessibility to a major extent, 28% followed guidelines to a moderate extent, 18% followed guidelines to a minor extent, 3% did not follow guidelines at all, and 33% did not know if the websites adhered to accessibility guidelines. Fichten et al. (2009) pointed out that colleges and universities should develop and adopt accessibility guidelines and standards that address both the development of accessible learning tools as well as purchases of e-learning products and technology. Once the guidelines and standards, training, and support are developed the information should be included prominently in information provided to students, parents, faculty, and staff across campus (Anderson et al., 2008). The results of an exploratory study conducted by Burgstahler (2006) found that incorporating accessibility considerations in policies, procedures, and communication requires efforts related to the key stakeholders and approval and implementation at a variety of levels. Those levels involve stakeholders from different areas of the campus that include the staff of disability services programs, information technology professions, relevant advisory groups, faculty, administrators, and individuals with disabilities (Anderson et al., 2008).
According to the Access E-Learning web-based tutorial “Planning for Accessibility”, there are many positive outcomes that can be derived from adopting accessibility policies such as the establishment of the expectation that accessibility will be required and expected at the institution, the cost and time savings from having trained instructors who are skilled at providing accessible content, the protection against costly litigation, and the reinforcement of an institution’s commitment to diversity and equal access to all students (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2003-2006, pp. 1-8). Regardless of the issues, including the interpretation of federal laws, lack of funding, and the challenges of buy-in, educational institutions must develop a seamless delivery system to ensure equal access for all (Lee & Templeton, 2008). 

Training

	One method of addressing problems related to inaccessibility of distance learning materials is through the training of professors. A study conducted by Stoneham in 2005 revealed that students blamed lack of faculty training as the top reason that instructors fail at providing equal access to students with disabilities. Many faculty members may not know about disability legislation and that failure to comply with the law may result in the loss of funding for their institution, not to mention the expense and embarrassment of litigation (Myers & Bastian, 2010). Lee and Templeton (2008) contended that educational professionals must acquire the knowledge and skills to provide content that is accessible regardless of their level of direct involvement with students with disabilities. An example of effective training was conducted by the University of Washington (UW) as part of its AccessIT project which included an overview of legal issues, examples of course accessibility barriers faced by students with disabilities, a demonstration of an application of each of the Section 508 web accessibility standards, a review of the content provided on the UW web accessibility website, and resources for support such as the disability services office and technology lab (Burgstahler et al., 2007). In order for faculty and staff to understand how they can be compliant with accessibility standards, they must become aware of the law and its recommendations, accept personal responsibility for compliance, and receive technical training in order to implement best practices when it comes to designing accessible course content (National Forum on Education Statistics, 2011). One approach to providing awareness of accessibility issues and solutions as suggested by the National Forum on Education Statistics is to design or utilize already designed customized training programs at a variety of levels with content building on the previous session so that stakeholders can participate in the training that best fits their level of knowledge and experience (2011).  The training should include concepts, techniques, and best practices that can be readily applied to the educational setting so that information can be immediately used by the participants (National Forum on Education Statistics, 2011). Myers and Bastian pointed out that by incorporating universal instructional design principles into curriculum, programs, and services and being aware of disability issues - faculty, administrators, and staff can show students with disabilities that they are valued members of the campus community (2010).

Conclusion

	Incorporating universal design principles into distance learning content will bring us closer to making distance learning accessible to anyone, anywhere, anytime (Burgstahler, 2006). This is an exciting time in higher education as we are in the midst of a digital transformation of education (Devine, 2012), but it is the responsibility of everyone involved to work toward the goal of providing equal access to the greatest number of people, regardless of their ability. Accessibility for all can be accomplished through the application of universal design principles to e-learning resources, development of guidelines and policies, and the training of faculty and staff in the proper formatting of instructional materials.

References

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2012). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. 

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Anderson, A., Burgstahler, S., Lewis, K., & Slatin, J. (2008). Accessible information technology: Lessons learned from three universities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 12(1

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2000). Electronic and information technology accessibility standards (Section 508). Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.pdf

Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 233-246. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.06.004

Burgstahler, S. (2006). The development of accessibility indicators for distance learning programs. Research in Learning Technology, 14(1), 79-102. doi:10.1080/09687760500479753

Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2007, June). Steps toward making distance learning accessible to students and instructors with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities. 

Devine, S. (2012, July 8). Not all students are treated equally in today’s digital era: A call for accessible technology in higher education. Huffington Post. 

Edmonds, C. (2004). Providing access to students with disabilities in online distance education: Legal and technical concerns for higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 51-62

Fichten, C., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M., Klomp, R., & Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241–256. 

Georgia Tech Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access. (2003-2006). Access e-learning tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.accesselearning.net

Gornitsky, M. (2011). Distance education: Accessibility for students with disabilities. Distance Learning, 8(3), 47-53.

Johnson, D., & Fox, J. (2003). Creating curb cuts in the classroom: Adopting universal design principles to education. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 7-19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 

Kalivoda, K., & Totty, M. (2003). Disability services as a resource: Advancing universal design. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 187-201). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Lazer, J., & Jaeger, P. (2011). Reducing barriers to online access for people with disabilities. Issues in Science and Technology, 27(2), 69-82. 

Lee, H., & Templeton, R. (2008). Ensuring equal access to technology: Providing assistive technology for students with disabilities. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 212-219. doi:10.1080/00405840802153874

Myers, K., & Bastian, J. (2010). Understanding communication preferences of college students with visual disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 265-278. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0129

National Center for Health Statistics. (1994). National health interview survey on disability. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis_disability.htm#data_highlights

National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education. (2013). AccessIT: Knowledge base articles by topic. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/accessit/faqs.html

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). About UDL. Retrieved from http://www.udlcentger.org/aboutudl

National Forum on Education Statistics. (2011). Forum guide to ensuring equal access to education websites: An introduction to electronic information accessibility standards (NFES 2011-807). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011807.pdf

North Carolina State University (2010). Center for universal design: About. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/center-for-universal-design/

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2011). Americans living with disability and their technology profile. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Disability.aspx

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Avacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Stoneham, J. (2005, August). The accessibility of the community college classroom to students with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 11. Retrieved from http://people.rit.edu/easi/itd/itdv11n1/stoneham.htm

Tandy, C., & Meacham, M. (2009). Removing the barriers for students with disabilities: Accessible online and web-enhanced courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 29(3), 313-328. doi:10.1080/08841230903022118

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Disability characteristics. American Community Survey. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/documents/2011-american-fact-finder-report-s1810.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Report of the advisory commission on accessible instructional materials in postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/aim/meeting/aim-report.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2000). Information technology and people with disabilities: The current state of federal accessibility. Retrieved from http://	www.justice.gov/crt/508/report

Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. NECS 2003-017. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003017.pdf

World Wide Web Consortium. (2013). Accessibility. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility