Access to Computer-Based Testing for Students with Disabilities
NCEO Synthesis Report 45
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Sandra J. Thompson • Martha L. Thurlow • Rachel F. Quenemoen • Camilla A. Lehr
June 2002
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis45.html
Called the “next frontier in testing,”
computer-based testing is being promoted as the solution to many of states’
testing problems. With pressure to find more cost effective and less labor
intensive approaches to testing, states are seeing computer-based testing as a
way to address the increasingly challenging prospect of assessing all students
in a state at nearly all grades. Computer-based testing is viewed with optimism
as an approach that will make testing less expensive in the long run, and that
will produce better assessments of the wide range of students who must now be
included in state and district assessments.
Unfortunately, most states and testing
companies have not specifically considered the needs of students with
disabilities as they pursue computer-based testing. Often, the approach has
simply been to take the paper and pencil test and put it onto a computer. This
is not enough. Poor design elements on the paper test will transfer to the
screen, and there will be additional challenges created by the move as well,
challenges that may reduce the validity of the assessment results and possibly
exclude some groups from participation in the assessment.
This paper recognizes both the opportunities
created by the new frontier of computer-based testing, but also identifies the
challenges. Research findings and accommodations considerations are also
addressed, with the end result being a process and considerations for the
initial transformation of paper/pencil assessments to inclusive computer-based
testing.
The recommended process for a good
transformation of a paper and pencil test to computer-based testing assumes
first that the principles of universally designed assessments have been
followed. Then, the five step that are recommended (and discussed in the paper)
are:
Step 1. Assemble a group of experts to guide
the transformation.
Step 2. Decide how each accommodation will be
incorporated into the computer-based test.
Step 3. Consider each accommodation or
assessment feature in light of the constructs being tested.
Step 4. Consider the feasibility of
incorporating the accommodation into the computer-based test.
Step 5. Consider training implications for staff and students.
The paper also presents initial
considerations for common accommodations within the categories of
timing/scheduling, presentation, response, and setting.
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law as the
“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” This Act requires states to have annual
assessments in place in reading and mathematics for all students in grades three
through eight by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, with science assessments
added by the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. Only nine states currently
administer standards-based tests in both subjects across grades three through
eight (Quality Counts, 2002), setting an unprecedented opportunity for states to
enhance the participation of all students as they build and improve their
assessment systems. Increased requirements within the law for itemized score
analyses, disaggregation within each school and district by gender, racial and
ethnic group, migrant status, English proficiency, disability, and income will
challenge states to create new and more efficient ways to administer, score, and
report assessment results.
Computer-based testing has been called the
“next frontier in testing” as educators, testing companies, and state
departments quickly work to transform paper/pencil tests into technology-based
formats (Trotter, 2001). These efforts have occurred in a variety of ways and
for a variety of tests. For example, some educators have transferred all of
their classroom quizzes and tests into a computer-based format. The paper/pencil
version of the Graduate Record Exam™
has been replaced with a computerized version that is administered across a
variety of locations. NCS Pearson™
has developed eMeasurement™ Services—a
suite of tools that delivers tests and their results electronically.1 As a result of these advances, states are facing
pressure to create computer-based large-scale assessments (Russell, 2002). Some
states are investigating the possibility of computerized adaptive testing for
their statewide assessments, where the difficulty level of questions are
presented and adjusted based on whether students’ responses are correct.
According to Bennett (1998), “Whereas there is certainly a concerted move toward
technology-based large-scale tests, there is no question that this assessment
mode is still in its infancy. Like many innovations in their early stages,
today’s computerized tests automate an existing process without
reconceptualizing it to realize the dramatic improvements that the innovation
could allow. Thus, these tests are substantively the same as those administered
on paper” (p. 3).
With the dramatic increase in the use of the
Internet over the past few years, and with it, the considerable potential of
online learning (Kerrey & Isakson, 2002), assessment will need to undergo a
complete transformation to keep pace. According to the Web-based Education
Commission, “Perhaps the greatest barrier to innovative teaching is assessment
that measures yesterday’s learning goals…Too often today’s tests measure
yesterday’s skills with yesterday’s testing technologies—paper and pencil” (p.
3).
Experts suggest that the Internet will be
used to develop tests and present items through dynamic and interactive stimuli
such as audio, video, and animation (Lewis, 2001). Given this momentum, it is
not surprising that there is a trend toward investigating and incorporating the
Internet as the testing medium for statewide assessments. Bennett (2001) stated,
“The trend is clear: the infrastructure is quickly falling into place for
Internet delivery of assessment to schools, perhaps first in survey programs
like NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) that require only a
small participant sample from each school, but eventually for inclusive
assessments delivered directly to the desktop” (p. 10).
As the trend toward computer-based testing
moves forward, it is important to focus carefully on the requirements of the
newly enacted No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and on the assessment
participation requirements in the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. In addition, a 1996 Department of Justice Policy
Ruling states that Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires State and local governments to provide effective communication whenever
they communicate through the Internet. The Office for Civil Rights discussed the
provision of effective communication:
The issue is not whether the student with the disability is merely provided access, but the issue is rather the extent to which the communication is actually as effective as that provided to others. Title II [of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990] also strongly affirms the important role that computer technology is expected to play as an auxiliary aid by which communication is made effective for persons with disabilities (Pages 1-2, 1996 Letter; 28 C.F.R. 35.160 (a)).
In further clarification, the Office for
Civil Rights lists three basic components of effective communication:
“timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner
and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of
the individual with the disability” (Page 1, 1997 Letter). This clarification
presents a significant and timely responsibility in the design of computer-based
testing.
For the full benefits of computer-based
testing to be realized, a thoughtful and systematic process to examine the
transfer of existing paper/pencil assessments must occur. It is not enough to
simply transfer test items from paper to screen. Not only will poor design
elements on the paper test transfer to the screen, additional challenges may
result that reduce the validity of the assessment results and possibly exclude
some groups of students from assessment participation.
This paper presents factors to consider in
the design of computer-based testing for all students, including students with
disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. We begin with the
opportunities and challenges presented by this “new frontier” in testing, and
then explore research about effective universally designed assessments and
technology-based accommodations, and relate this knowledge to computer-based
testing design features. Finally, we present a process and consideration for the
initial transformation of paper/pencil assessments to inclusive computer-based
testing.
Several advocates have articulated the
positive merits of computer-based testing. Some of the advantages over
paper/pencil tests that have been cited include: efficient administration,
preferred by students, self-selection options for students, improved writing
performance, built-in accommodations, immediate results, efficient item
development, increased authenticity, and the potential to shift focus from
assessment to instruction. This section describes each of these prospective
opportunities.
Efficient Administration
Computer-based tests can be administered to
individuals or small groups of students in classrooms or computer labs,
eliminating timing issues caused by the need to administer paper/pencil tests in
large groups in single sittings. Different students can take different tests
simultaneously in the same room.
Preferred by
Students
In an evaluation of testing experience,
students overwhelmingly preferred computerized testing to paper/pencil testing
(Brown & Augustine, 2001). Most students, regardless of group or ability,
believed that the computer was easier, faster, and more fun. Students also
responded that using a computer helped concentration by presenting only one
question at a time. A recent survey on computer use by students with
disabilities in Germany (Ommerborn & Schuemer, 2001) found several more
advantages than disadvantages to computer use.
Brown-Chidsey and Boscardin (1999)
interviewed students with learning disabilities and found that the computer
helped them deal with limitations that often interfered with the completion of
their work. The researchers concluded, “Students’ beliefs about computers are
likely to shape the extent to which instructional technology enhances their
achievement” (Brown-Chidsey, Boscardin, & Sireci, 1999, p. 4). A study at the
Boston College Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Assessment
(Trotter, 2001) found, “Students who are accustomed to writing on computers tend
to do better on computerized tests than on paper exams. Conversely, students who
don’t use computers often to write tend to do better when they complete their
tests on paper” (p. 3).
Self-Selection
Options for Students
Students have the option to choose features
on computer-based tests, including format features and built-in accommodations.
For example, Calhoon et al. found that “teachers are unlikely to provide a
reader to meet student needs because teachers prefer test accommodations that
require little individualization and do not require curricular or environmental
modifications” (p. 272). Other recent work on accommodations for English
Language Learners (Anderson, Liu, Swierzbin, Thurlow, & Bielinski, 2000; Liu,
Anderson, Swierzbin, & Thurlow, 1999) has shown that students may not want to
use certain accommodations (e.g., headphones to have instructions read in
English, bilingual dictionaries) unless they are provided in specific ways.
Teachers have reported that students with learning disabilities may opt not to
use certain accommodations at certain times because they are not seen as
helpful. Having the ability to self-select a technology-based reader or other
tool may provide students access to a necessary accommodation that may not be
offered currently, due to issues of convenience.
Improved Writing
Performance
As computers become more common in schools,
many of today’s students are accustomed to using computers in their daily work.
Students write and calculate on computers as easily and with more speed and
efficiency than previous generations could on paper. Research has shown that
writing on computers leads students to write more and revise more than writing
with paper/pencil (Daiute, 1985; Morocco & Neuman, 1986). Paper/pencil tests
that require writing may underestimate the writing ability of students who have
grown accustomed to writing on computers (Russell & Haney, 1997). In a survey of
computer use by students with disabilities in Germany, Ommerborn and Schuemer
(2001) found that the greatest advantage to students was the ease in which
computers allowed them to write essays. Several of the students surveyed said
that it was very difficult for them to write by hand.
Built-in
Accommodations
Computer technology has been touted as a tool
that can be used to empower students with disabilities (Goldberg & O’Neill,
2000). Specifically, computer-based testing has been viewed as a vehicle to
increase the participation of students with disabilities in assessment programs.
For example, the windows operating system supports a great variety of adaptive
devices (e.g., screen readers, Braille displays, screen magnification,
self-voicing Web browsers). According to Greenwood and Rieth (1994), the primary
strength of computer-based testing is its “potential for removing traditional
barriers to the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the assessment process
through adaptations and accommodations as well as through new forms” (p. 110).
Computer-based testing can provide
flexibility in administration for students with various learning styles. For
example, the National Research Council (NRC, 2001) found computer-based testing
to be effective for students who perform better visually than with text, are not
native English speakers, or are insecure about their capabilities. According to
NRC, “Technology is already being used to assess students with physical
disabilities and other learners whose special needs preclude representative
performance using traditional media for measurement” (p. 286).
Standardization of accommodated assessment
administrations can be facilitated by computer-based testing. According to
Brown-Chidsey and Boscardin (1999), “Using a computer to present a test orally
controls for standardization of administration and allows each student to
complete the assessment at his/her own pace” (p. 2). Brown and Augustine (2001)
cited educator appreciation of a computer’s ability to present items over and
over, in both written and verbal form, without the need for a non-standard (and
sometimes impatient) human reader. Several studies have shown the positive
effects of providing a reader for math tests (see Calhoon, Fuchs & Hamlett,
2000; Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, & Karns, 2000; Tindal, Heath, Hollenbeck,
Almond, & Harniss, 1998).
With the use of audio and video built into
computer-based tests, specialized testing equipment such as audiocassette
recorders and VCRs could become obsolete (Bennett, Goodman, Hessinger, Ligget,
Marshall, Kahn, & Zack, 1999). According to Bennett (1995), “Test directions and
help functions would be redundantly encoded as text, audio, video, and Braille,
with the choice of representation left to the examinee. The digital audio would
allow for spoken directions, whereas the video could present instruction in sign
language or speech-readable form. Among other things, these standardized
presentations should reduce the noncomparability associated with the uneven
quality of human readers and sign-language interpreters” (p. 10).
Finally, just as the use of accommodations on
paper/pencil tests has increased awareness and use of accommodations in the
classroom, so can opportunities to use the built-in accommodation features of
computer-based tests encourage and increase the use of those features in
classroom and other environments. For example, Williams (2002) believes, “It is
possible that new developments in speech recognition technology could increase
opportunities for individual reading practice with feedback, as well as
collecting assessment data to inform instructional decision making” (p. 41). In
addition, most computer-based tests have built-in tutorials and practice tests.
These tutorials provide students with both opportunities for familiarizing
themselves with the software and immediate feedback (Association of Test
Producers, 2000).
Immediate Results
One of the major drawbacks of state testing
on paper has been the long wait for results because of the need to distribute,
collect, and then scan test booklets/answer forms and hand score open-response
items and essays. Students tested in the spring often do not receive their
results until fall—nor do their teachers or schools. The results of
computer-based tests can be available immediately, providing schools with
diagnostic tools to use for improved instruction, and states with information to
guide policy. Even open-ended items can be scored automatically, greatly
reducing cost and scoring time (Thompson, 1999). According to a report by the
National Governors Association (2002), cost savings can result from “the
elimination of printing and shipping activities when paper testing ceases” (p.
7).
Efficient Item
Development
As computer-based testing becomes more
developed, item development will be more efficient, higher quality, and less
expensive (National Governors Association, 2002). Bennett (1998) believes that
at some point items might be generated electronically, with items matched to
particular specifications at the moment of administration. “Test design will
also be the focal point for responding to diversity. The effects of different
test designs on minority group members, females, …will be routinely simulated in
deciding what skills and which task formats to use in large-scale assessments”
(Bennett, 1998, p. 9). According to Russell (2002), “already, some testing
programs are experimenting with ways to generate large banks of test items via
computer algorithms with the hope of saving the time and money currently
required to produce test items manually” (p. 65). Baker (2002) cited several
research efforts that have significantly advanced the progress of schema or
template-based, multiple-choice development and test management systems (see
Bejar, 1995; Bennett, 2002; Chung, Baker, & Cheak, 2001; Chung Klein, Herl &
Bewley, 2001; Gitomer, Steinbert, & Mislevy, 1995; Mislevy, Steinbert, & Almond,
1999).
Increased
Authenticity
Computers allow for increased use of
“authentic assessments”—responses can be open-ended rather than just relying on
multiple choice. According to Bennett (1998), the next generation of
computer-based tests will be “qualitatively different from those of the first
generation. This difference will be evident in the test questions (and, in some
cases, the characteristics they measure), as well as in development, scoring,
and administrative processes” (p. 4, see Table 1). Bennett notes that many
Americans are now receiving their news from TV and the World Wide Web, with the
expectation that students will increasingly be able to process information from
a variety of sources, not just from print. Bennett also suggests that response
formats will shift dramatically, perhaps including problems in which a student
is not expected to find the best answer, but a reasonable one within certain
constraints.
Generation |
Key Characteristics |
| First-Generation Computer-Based
Tests (Infrastructure Building) |
Primarily serve institutional
needs Measure traditional skills and
use test designs and item formats closely resembling paper-based tests Take limited advantage
of technology |
| Next-Generation Computer-Based
Tests (Qualitative Change) |
Primarily serve institutional
needs Use new item formats (including
multimedia and constructed response), automatic item generation, automatic
scoring, and electronic networks to make performance assessment an integral
program component; measure some new constructs Allow customers to
interact with testing companies entirely electronically |
Generation “R” Test (Reinvention) |
Serve both institutional and
individual purposes
Integrated with instruction via electronic tools so that performance is
sampled repeatedly over time; designed according to cognitive principles Use complex simulations,
including virtual reality, that model real environments and allow more
natural interaction with computers |
Adapted from: Bennett, R.E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Shifts Focus from
Assessment to Instruction
Bennett (1998) believes that eventually
large-scale assessment will join with instruction. “Decisions like certification
of course mastery, graduation eligibility, and school effectiveness will no
longer be based largely on one examination given at a single time but will also
incorporate information from a series of measurements” (p. 11). “By virtue of
moving assessment into the curriculum, the locus of the debate over performance
differences must logically shift from the
accuracy of assessment to the adequacy of instruction” (p. 12). Bennett
continues this line of thought in a 2001 article, “When well-constructed tests
closely reflect the curriculum, group differences should become more an issue of
instructional inadequacy than test inaccuracy. As attention shifts to the
adequacy of instruction, the ability to derive meaningful information from test
performance becomes more critical” (p. 2).
Despite the potential advantages offered by
computer-based testing, there remain several challenges, especially in the
transition from paper/pencil assessments. First of all, the use of technology
cannot take the place of content mastery. No matter how well a test is designed,
or what media are used for administration, students who have not had an
opportunity to learn the material tested will perform poorly. Students need
access to the information tested in order to have a fair chance at performing
well. Hollenbeck, Tindal, Harniss, and Almond (1999) strongly caution that the
use of a computer, in and of itself, does not improve the overall quality of
student writing. They, and other researchers, continue to find significantly
lower mean test scores for students with disabilities than for their peers
without disabilities. Other challenges that must be overcome in order for
computer-based testing to be effective include: issues of equity and skill in
computer use, added challenges for some students, technological challenges,
security of online data, lack of expertise in designing accessible Web pages,
and prohibitive development cost.
Issues of Equity
and Skill in Computer Use
Concerns continue to exist in the area of
equity, where questions are asked about whether the required use of computers
for important tests puts some students at a disadvantage because of lack of
access, use, or familiarity (Trotter, 2001). Concerns include unfamiliarity with
answering standardized test questions on a computer screen, using buttons to
search for specific items, and indecision about whether to use traditional tools
(e.g., hand held calculator) vs. computer-based tools. According to Wissick and
Gardner (2000), “Students will not take advantage of help options or use
navigation guides if they require more personal processing energy than they can
evoke” (p. 38).
A survey on computer use by students with
disabilities in Germany (Ommerbon & Schuemer, 2001) found the cost of acquiring
and using a computer as the greatest barrier, with the second being a lack of
training opportunities. Students who needed assistive technology cited high cost
and lack of information as barriers to increased computer use.
The gap in access to technology—sometimes
referred to as the “Digital Divide”—is continuing to grow. According to Bolt and
Crawford, authors of Digital Divide
(2000, p. 98):
While over 80 percent of families with incomes of $100,000 or more have computers at home, only about 25 percent of those households with annual incomes under $30,000 have home access to computers. Demographically, this means that the digital revolution is in full swing in America’s wealthy suburbs and affluent sections of cities and towns, while in some of our poorest areas, it is a phenomenon that is at best heard about on television. The gap has widened considerably for computer ownership among racial minorities when compared with European-Americans. In the context of the overall racial digital divide, a low-income European-American child is three times more likely to have internet access than his or her African-American counterpart, and four times as likely as a Latino family in the same socioeconomic category.
Added Challenges
for Some Students
Some research questions whether the medium of
test presentation affects the comparability of the tasks students are being
asked to complete. Here are some findings that show added difficulty for some
students.
Technological
Challenges
Computers and the Internet do not always work
the way we want them to. The word “crash” has taken on a whole new meaning in
our technology-oriented world. An issue brief of the National Governors
Association listed some of the problems: “testing sessions may be interrupted,
proceed so slowly as to interfere with student performance, or encounter
difficulties in machine operation or telecommunications that cause data to be
lost entirely. Unlike a paper-and-pencil testing system, keeping a computerized
system functioning requires significant technical expertise, which many schools
lack” (p. 7). Burk (1999) argued, “Computerized testing for students with
disabilities is viable but only with appropriate equipment, staff preparation,
and student preparation” (p. 6). Some researchers, like Hamilton, Klein, and
Lorie (2001), question whether an infrastructure currently exists that can
support the use of computers by large numbers of students. They also question
the quality of the hardware, especially with our constant evolution of
technology, and whether there is sufficient training for staff who must help
with administration and technological difficulties that may be encountered.
Also, the test program may be device-dependent; for example, there may be a
difference in contrast between monitors and speed of the computer. A test
presented online may default to the computer’s font, print size, and background
color. Graphics may become distorted on small screens, reducing standardization
of the assessment presentation. According to a report by the National Governors
Association (2002, p. 7):
The reality of statewide computerized testing is that equipment will vary from one school to the next and, sometimes, from one machine to the next within the same school. Similarly, the speed of the Internet connection may differ across schools or within the same school by time of day. The result of these variations is that one student may take a test on a small-screen monitor running at low resolution, thereby requiring repeated scrolling to read comprehension passages. Because of the Internet connection, that student may have to wait five seconds before the next passage is displayed. In contrast, another student may be able to see not only the entire passage but also the questions on the same single screen, with no wait between passages. It is known that such variations can affect performance, but it is not known how to adjust for them in test results.
A constant challenge is ongoing entry of new
Web browsers and new versions of existing browsers. In addition, HTML and
document converters are constantly being developed and modified. Unfortunately,
several features may not be universally accessible and advancements in assistive
technology are usually several steps behind new Internet components and tools.
For example, using an eye pointing device may increase the time needed to
position each eye pointing frame, leading to increased fatigue, boredom, and
inattention by the test-taker (Haaf, Duncan, Skarakis-Doyle, Carew, & Kapitan,
1999). As computer-based testing becomes a reality across states and districts,
it is important to ensure that the new technology either improves accessibility
or is compatible with existing assistive computer technology.
Security of
Online Data
Critics question whether online data are
secure. In a report by the National Governors Association (2002), security
issues related to protecting test questions and ensuring the confidentiality of
student data in a computerized system were compared to those encountered with
conventional tests and were found to be conceptually similar. Differences were
found in mechanisms to accomplish breaches and protect against them. For
example, test questions and student data could be stolen from central servers or
from local computers. This can be minimized through technical design that
encrypts questions and student records and through the careful use of passwords.
Lack of Ability
to Design Accessible Web Pages
According to WebAIM, (Web Accessibility in
Mind, an initiative of the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State
University, 2001), there are 27.3 million people with disabilities who are
limited in the ways they can use the Internet: “The saddest aspect of this fact
is that the know-how and the technology to overcome these limitations already
exist, but they are greatly under-utilized, mostly because Web developers simply
do not know enough about the issue to design pages that are accessible to people
with disabilities. Unfortunately, even some of the more informed Web developers
minimize the importance of the issue, or even ignore the problem altogether” (p.
1).
Prohibitive
Development Cost
Development expenses listed in a report by
the National Governors Association (2002) include: “central hardware to deliver
the test over the Internet, local telecommunications hardware, machines in
schools for students to take the tests on, and test authoring and delivery
software. Labor expenses include costs for entering questions into the testing
software, assuring quality in the test’s operation, extracting student records
from the test database and translating the information into a form suitable for
analysis, and servicing the technology that runs the system. There are also
ongoing connection charges” (p. 7). The National Governors Association
recommends that states form consortia, cooperative agreements, or buying pools
in order to reduce the costs of “test questions, telecommunications equipment,
computer hardware, testing software, and equipment maintenance” (p. 9).
Universal design is defined by the Center for
Universal Design (1997) as “the design of products and environments to be usable
by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation
or specialized design.” The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (PL 105-394)
addresses universal design through this definition:
The term ‘universal design’ means a concept or philosophy for designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities, which include products and services that are directly usable (without requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are made usable with assistive technologies.
A recent report on the application of
universal design to large-scale assessments (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow,
2002) found that good basic design, whether on paper or technology-based,
increases access for everyone, and poor design can have detrimental effects for
nearly everyone. Many accessibility issues relate to content and design
features, with content defined as subject matter on the page while design is
defined as the organization or arrangement of objects and information on the
page.
Content
An important function of well-designed
assessments is that they actually measure what they are intended to measure.
Test developers need to carefully examine
what is to be tested and design items that offer the greatest opportunity
for success within those constructs. Just as universally designed architecture
removes physical, sensory, and cognitive barriers to all types of people in
public and private structures, universally designed assessments need to remove
all non-construct-oriented cognitive, sensory, emotional, and physical barriers.
Assessment instructions need to be easy to
understand, regardless of a student’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or
current concentration level. Directions and questions need to be in simple,
clear, and understandable language. It is important for designers of
computer-based tests to strive for content that is understandable and navigable.
According to WebAIM (2001), “this includes not only making the language clear
and simple, but also providing understandable mechanisms for navigating within
and between pages” (p. 8).
Design Features
Legibility is the physical appearance of
text; the way shapes of letters and numbers enable people to read text “quickly,
effortlessly, and with understanding” (Schriver, 1997, p. 252). Though a great
deal of research has been conducted in this area, the personal opinions of
editors often prevail (Bloodsworth, 1993; Tinker, 1963). Bias results from items
that contain physical features that interfere with a student’s focus on or
understanding of the construct an item is intended to assess. Format dimensions
can include contrast, type size, spacing, typeface, leading, justification, line
length/width, blank space, graphs and tables, illustrations, and response
formats (see Table 2).
Table 2.
Characteristics of Maximum Legibility
| Dimension |
Maximum Legibility
Characteristics |
| Contrast |
Black type on matte pastel or off-white paper is most favorable for both
legibility and eye strain. |
| Type Size |
Large type sizes are most effective for young students who are learning to
read, students with visual difficulties, and individuals with eye fatigue
issues. |
| Spacing |
The amount of space between each character can affect legibility. Spacing
needs to be wide between both letters and words. Fixed-space fonts seem to
be more legible for some readers than proportional-spaced fonts. |
| Leading |
Leading, the amount of vertical space between lines of type, must be enough
to avoid type that looks blurry and has a muddy look. The amount needed
varies with type size (for example, 14-point type needs 3-6 points of
leading). |
| Typeface |
Standard typeface, using upper and lower case, is more readable than italic,
slanted, small caps, or all caps. |
| Justification |
Unjustified text (with staggered right margin) is easier to see and scan
than justified text – especially for poor readers. |
| Line Length |
Optimal length is about 4 inches or 8 to 10 words per line. This length
avoids reader fatigue and difficulty locating the beginning of the next
line, which causes readers to lose their place. |
| Blank Space |
A general rule is to allow text to occupy only about half of a page. Blank
space anchors text on the paper and increases legibility. |
| Graphs and Tables |
Symbols used on graphs need to be highly discriminable. Labels should be
placed directly next to plot lines so that information can be found quickly
and not require short-term memory. |
| Illustrations |
When used, an illustration should be directly next to the question for which
it is needed. Because illustrations create numerous visual and distraction
challenges, and may interfere with the use of some accommodations (such as
magnifiers), they should be used only when they contain information being
assessed. |
Response Formats |
Response options should include larger circles (for bubble response tests),
as well as multiple other forms of response. |
From Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002.
It is important to maintain these aspects of
universal design when converting paper/pencil tests to computer-based tests.
Poor design on paper will result in poor design on a screen. In addition to the
universal design elements described above, computer-based testing can offer
several additional features that can increase the accessibility of assessments
for all students, including students with disabilities and English language
learners. According to WebAIM (2001), “Everyone benefits from well-designed Web
sites, regardless of cognitive capabilities. In this context, ‘well-designed’
can be defined as having a simple and intuitive interface, clearly worded text,
and a consistent navigational scheme between pages” (p. 8). These features also
need to take into account variations in technology available in schools across a
district or state, and the other challenges described in the previous section.
The provision of navigation tools and
orientation information in pages can maximize access for all users. However,
there are users who cannot access visual clues such as image maps, scroll bars,
side-by-side frames, or graphics. Some users lose contextual information because
they are accessing a page one word at a time through speech synthesis or
braille. Ommerborn and Schuemer (2001, p. 21) conducted a survey of German
students with disabilities and found that:
Being able to use various ways of sending commands within a programme not only helps people with specific handicaps, but also renders working with a computer much more comfortable for all users with their different preferences and skills…Multimedia products addressing several senses or allowing the user to choose between visual and acoustic information not only makes access easier for people with impaired senses but also makes the product altogether more attractive.
Even though items on universally designed
assessments will be accessible for most students, there will still be some
students who continue to need accommodations, including assistive technology.
According to Bowe (2000), “One big advantage of universal design is that it
minimizes the need, on the part of people with disabilities, for assistive
technology devices and services” (p. 25). Items are biased when they do not
allow for adaptation for use with assistive technology that is needed to
facilitate use of the student’s primary means of communication. Computer-based
tests need to be accessible for a variety of forms of assistive technology
(e.g., key guards, specialized keyboards, trackballs, screen readers, screen
enlargers) for students with physical or sensory disabilities. Bowe (2000)
stated, “If a product or service is not usable by some individual, it is the
responsibility of its developers to find ways to make it usable, or, at minimum,
to arrange for it to be used together with assistive technologies of the user’s
choice” (p. 27). Appendix A describes several resources to assist assessment
developers in increasing access to assistive technology.
It is important to note that making
computer-based testing amenable to assistive technology does not mean that
students will automatically know what to do. Educators, especially special
educators, need to be competent in technology knowledge and use. According to
Lahm and Nickels (1999), “Educators must become proactive in their
technology-related professional development because teacher education programs
have only recently begun addressing the technology skills of their students” (p.
56). The Knowledge and Skills Subcommittee of the Council for Exceptional
Children’s (CEC) Professional Standards and Practice Standing Committee has
developed a set of 51 competencies for assistive technology that cross 8
categories, along with knowledge and skills statements for each category (see
Lahm & Nickels, 1999).
Laws Governing
Assistive Technology
The use of assistive technology is defined in
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97), the Rehabilitation
Act of 1997, and is implied in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). IDEA
97 defines assistive technology as “any item, piece of equipment, or product
system…that is used to improve the functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities; and any service that directly assists an individual in the
selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device.” An “assistive
technology device” is further defined as “any item, piece of equipment, or
product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or
customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional
capabilities of a child with a disability” (20 U.S.C. 1401(1)).
The Rehabilitation Act (reauthorized in 1997)
requires institutions receiving federal funds to have accessible Web sites.
Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires covered entities
to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure
effective communication with individuals with disabilities, unless doing so
would result in a fundamental alteration to the program or service or in an
undue burden (See 28 C.F.R. 36.303; 28 C.F.R. 35.160). Auxiliary aids include
taped texts, Brailled materials, large print materials, captioning, and other
methods of making audio and visual media available to people with disabilities.
Titles II and III of the ADA require State and local governments and the
business sector to provide effective communication whenever they communicate
through the Internet. In order to specifically address the needs of people with
visual disabilities, an ADA policy ruling determined that a text format rather
than a graphical format assures accessibility to the Internet for individuals
using screen readers. Without special coding, a text browser will only display
the word “image” when it reads a graphic image, and if the graphic is essential
to navigating the site (e.g., navigational button or arrow) or if it contains
important information (e.g., table or image map) the user can get stuck and not
be able to move or understand the information provided.
Assistive
Technology Resources
There are several resources available to increase the accessibility of computer-based testing for students with disabilities. These resources are found primarily in the area of general Web content. Chishold, Vanderheiden, and Jacobs (1999) offer guidelines on how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. They are quick to point out that following these guidelines can also make Web content more available to all users, including those who use voice browsers, mobile phones, automobile-based personal computers, and other technology. The guidelines, found in Table 3, explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience. For more information about Web accessibility, visit http://www.webaim.org, the official Web site of Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM). Several additional resources can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
21
December 2001:
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has released the first
public Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines "Wombat". The
guidelines are for developers who wish to design authoring tools that produce
accessible Web content and who wish to create accessible authoring interfaces)
Guideline 1. Provide equivalent
alternatives to auditory and visual content.
Provide content that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the same
function or purpose as auditory or visual content.
Guideline 2. Don't rely on color alone.
Ensure that text and graphics are understandable when viewed without color.
Guideline 3. Use markup and style sheets
and do so properly.
Mark up documents with the proper structural elements. Control presentation with
style sheets rather than with presentation elements and attributes.
Guideline 4. Clarify natural language
usage.
Use markup that facilitates pronunciation or interpretation of abbreviated or
foreign text.
Guideline 5. Create tables that
transform gracefully.
Ensure that tables have necessary markup to be transformed by accessible
browsers and other user agents.
Guideline 6. Ensure that pages featuring
new technologies transform gracefully.
Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies are not supported
or are turned off.
Guideline 7. Ensure user control of
time-sensitive content changes.
Ensure that moving, blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating objects or pages may
be paused or stopped.
Guideline 8. Ensure direct accessibility
of embedded user interfaces.
Ensure that the user interface follows principles of accessible design:
device-independent access to functionality, keyboard operability, self-voicing,
etc.
Guideline 9. Design for
device-independence.
Use features that enable activation of page elements via a variety of input
devices.
Guideline 10. Use interim solutions.
Use interim accessibility solutions so that assistive technologies and older
browsers will operate correctly.
Guideline 11. Use W3C technologies and
guidelines.
Use W3C technologies (according to specification) and follow accessibility
guidelines. Where it is not possible to use a W3C technology, or doing so
results in material that does not transform gracefully, provide an alternative
version of the content that is accessible.
Guideline 12. Provide context and
orientation information.
Provide context and orientation information to help users understand complex
pages or elements.
Guideline 13. Provide clear navigation
mechanisms.
Provide clear and consistent navigation mechanisms -- orientation information,
navigation bars, a site map, etc. -- to increase the likelihood that a person
will find what they are looking for at a site.
Guideline 14. Ensure that documents are
clear and simple.
Ensure that documents are clear and simple so they may be more easily
understood.
In computerized adaptive testing, a student
responds to an item, which is followed by more difficult items if the student
responded correctly, or easier items if the student responded incorrectly
(Hamilton, Klein, & Lorié, 2001). Through this process, a student’s performance
level is determined. According to Hamilton, Klein and Lorié (2001), “each
response leads to a revised estimate of the student’s proficiency and a decision
either to stop testing or to administer an additional item that is harder or
easier than the previous one” (p. 12).
The advantages cited for computerized
adaptive testing include short and efficient administration time, with the
computer selecting the next item immediately after an item is completed. A
proficiency level is determined through the completion of fewer items than a
test in which students respond to every item on the test. According to McBride
(1985), “A well-constructed adaptive test attains a specified level of
measurement precision in about half the length of time a conventional test would
require to reach the same level. This is attributable to the adaptive feature;
by tailoring the choice of questions to match the examinee’s ability, the test
bypasses most questions that are inappropriate in difficulty level and
contribute little to the accurate estimation of the test-taker’s ability” (p.
26).
However Stone and Lunz (1994) found that the
inability of students taking computerized adaptive tests to review items and
alter their responses may affect the quality of measurement. Students cannot
select the order in which they respond to items, or leave some items blank.
There is some research that suggests that
students who change earlier answers may improve their scores by a small margin
(Gerson & Bergstrom, 1995; Stocking, 1996). There is also concern that some
students may respond to early items wrong on purpose to get easier questions
(Wainer, 1993).
The use of computerized adaptive tests for
large-scale assessments has come under scrutiny by federal officials who
question whether “levels” testing meets accountability requirements of Title I
(Olson in Education Week, 2002). Levels testing,
which has been defined as testing at a student’s instructional level rather than
at his or her grade level, relies on overlapping levels within a single grade
level, and common items among the levels. Computerized adaptive testing goes
beyond the need for separate booklets by using a variety of complex algorithms
that allows the student to move among different “levels” more freely, based on
performance (Quenemoen, Thurlow, & Bielinski, in press).
Process for
Developing Inclusive Computer-based Tests
The transformation of traditional
paper/pencil tests to inclusive computer-based tests takes careful and thorough
work that includes the collaborative expertise of many people. As discussed
earlier in this paper, in order for the full benefits of computer-based testing
to be realized, a thoughtful and systematic process to examine the transfer of
existing paper/pencil assessments must occur. It is not enough to simply
transfer test items from paper to screen. Not only will poor design elements on
the paper test transfer to the screen, additional challenges may result in
reducing the validity of assessment results. Some of the challenges
traditionally present with accommodations could be minimized through universally
designed computer-based tests, while others might remain or present even greater
challenges. Here are some steps to follow in addressing these transformation
issues.
Step 1. Assemble a group of experts to guide the transformation. This group needs to include experts on assessment design, accessible Web design, universal design, and assistive technology, along with state and local assessment and special education personnel. Table 4 contains a worksheet to use when gathering this group.
Table 4. Assemble a Group of Experts to Guide the Development of Computer-based
Tests.
Type of Expert |
Names/Positions |
Assessment design experts |
|
Accessible Web design experts |
|
Universal design experts |
|
Assistive technology experts |
|
State assessment personnel |
|
State special education personnel |
|
Local assessment personnel |
|
Local special education personnel |
|
Step 2.
Decide how each accommodation will be incorporated into the computer-based test.
Examine each possible accommodation in light of computer-based administration.
Some of the traditional paper/pencil accommodations will no longer be needed
(e.g., marking responses on test form rather than on answer sheet), while others
will become built-in features that are available to every test-taker. Some
accommodations will be more difficult to incorporate than others, requiring
careful work by test designers and technology specialists. The standards and
guidelines for accessible Web design found in Appendices B, C, and D should be
used when building in these features.
Step 3.
Consider each accommodation or assessment feature in light of the constructs
being tested. For example, what are the implications of the use of a screen
reader when the construct being measured is reading, or the use of a spellcheck
when achievement in spelling is being measured as part of the writing process?
As the use of speech recognition technology permeates the corporate world,
constructs that focus on writing on paper without the use of a dictionary or
spellchecker may become obsolete and need to be reconsidered.
Step 4.
Consider the feasibility of incorporating the accommodation into computer-based
tests.
Questions about the feasibility of the accommodation may require review by
technical advisors, or members of a policy/budget committee, or may require
short-term solutions along with long term planning. According to the Technology
Act of 1998 (§ 1194.2 Application):
(a) When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each agency shall ensure that the products comply with the applicable provisions of this part, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
(1) When compliance with the provisions of this part imposes an undue burden, agencies shall provide individuals with disabilities with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.
Construct a specific plan for building in
features that are not immediately available, in order to keep them in the
purview of test developers. Extensive pilot testing needs to be conducted with a
variety of equipment scenarios and accessibility features.
Step 5.
Consider training implications for staff and students. The best technology
will be useless if students or staff do not know how to use it. Careful design
of local training and implementation needs to be part of the planning process.
Special consideration needs to be given to the computer literacy of students and
their experience using features like screen readers. Information about the
features available on computer-based tests needs to be marketed to schools and
available to IEP teams to use in planning a student’s instruction and in
preparation for the most accessible assessments possible. Practice tests that
include these features need to be available to all schools year around. This
availability presents an excellent opportunity for students whose schools have
previously been unaware of or balked at the use of assistive technology.
Most states have a list of possible or common
accommodations for students with disabilities within the categories of
timing/scheduling, presentation, response, and setting (Thurlow, Lazarus, &
Thompson, 2002). Some states also list accommodations specifically designed for
students with limited English proficiency (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone, &
Sharkey, 2000).
Presentation
Accommodations
The list of accommodations in Table 5 is an
expanded list of presentation accommodations generated to address the needs of
students with a variety of accommodation needs—including students with
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, students with both
disabilities and limited English proficiency, and students who do not receive
special services, but have a variety of unique learning and response styles and
needs. For each accommodation, relevant considerations are provided in the
table. The three columns to the right of the Considerations Column represent:
Following Table 5 is a summary of considerations for each of the presentation accommodations.
Table 5. Presentation Accommodations
| Accommodation |
Considerations for Computer-based Tests |
1* |
2* |
3* |
| Large print and magnification
|
Capacity for any student to
self-select print size or magnification
Graphics and text-based user interfaces have different challenges Scrolling issues Determination of optimal
print size (e.g., default set at 14 pt) and size of graphics to reduce need
for large print or magnification Variations in screen
size Effects of magnification
on graphics and tables |
X |
|
X |
| Instructions simplified/clarified
|
Instructions designed for maximum
simplicity/clarity
Capacity for student to self-select alternate versions of instructions in
written or audio format Capacity to have
instructions repeated as often as student chooses Variable audio speed |
X |
|
|
| Audio presentation of
instructions and test items
|
Capacity for any student to
self-select audio (screen reader) presentation of instructions (all students
wear ear/headphones) Graphics and text-based user
interfaces have different challenges Capacity to repeat
instructions and items as often as student chooses Variable audio speed Audio presentation must
be high quality |
X |
|
|
| Instructions and test items
presented in sign language
|
Capacity for student to
self-select alternate versions of instructions in written format Capacity for student to
self-select signed versions of instructions and test items (Note: some words
may not be easily translated into sign language) Graphics and text-based
user interfaces have different challenges Not feasible to read
lips on video |
X |
|
|
| Instructions and test items
presented in a language other than English
|
Capacity for student to
self-select alternate language versions of test items in written or audio
format Beware of the speed at which some
languages are produced, they may take more space than English Machine translation
capability Graphics and text-based
user interfaces have different challenges Capacity for pop-up
translation Variable audio speed |
X |
X |
|
| Braille |
Use of screen reader that converts text into synthesized speech or Braille Alternative tags for images Graphics and text-based
user interfaces have different challenges Students using Braille
may require extra time |
|
X |
X |
| Highlighter and place holding
templates |
Capacity for any student to
self-select highlighter
Graphics and text-based user interfaces have different challenges Clear instructions for
use of highlighter |
X |
|
|
| Graphics or images that
supplement text |
Careful selection of images Alternative text or "alt tags" for images Graphics and text-based
user interfaces have different challenges Avoidance of complex
backgrounds or wallpaper that may interfere with the readability of
overlying text Tactile graphics or
three-dimensional models may be needed for images |
|
|
X |
| Paper/pencil test format |
Students who are not computer
literate Students who need accommodations
that are not available on computer-based assessments |
|
|
X |
| Use of color
|
Capacity for multiple choices of
screen and text color
Graphics and text-based user interfaces have different challenges |
X |
|
|
| Flashing or blinking text or
objects |
Flash or blink frequency |
X |
|
|
| Multiple column layout |
Linear presentation order needs
to be logical Access to screen reader Graphics and text-based
user interfaces have different challenges |
X |
|
X |
| Captioning |
Capacity to provide captioning for video content |
X |
|
X |
*1 Built-in feature of universally designed
computer-based test (available for self-selection by any student)
*2 Need for accommodation not affected by computer-based test
*3 New or different accommodation may be needed because of computer-based test
Large
print and magnification. When type is enlarged on a screen, students may
need to scroll back and forth, or up and down to read an entire test item. Text
that re-wraps to fit into the screen when magnified is more useful than text
that requires horizontal scrolling to be accessible. Some students use a large
screen monitor to enlarge pages proportionally. Graphics, when enlarged, may
become very pixilated and difficult to view. Students who use hand held
magnifiers or monocular devices when working on paper may not be able to use
these devices on a screen because of the distortion of computer images. If a
graphics user interface is used (versus text based), students will not have the
option of altering print size on the screen. However, a text-based user
interface may default to a small print size or font on some computers.
Instructions simplified/clarified. Instructions for all students need
clearly worded text that can be followed simply and intuitively, with a
consistent navigational scheme between pages/items. Students need an option to
self-select alternate forms of instructions in written or audio format.
Audio
presentation of instructions and test items. Screen readers can present text as synthesized speech. Screen readers
need to be operable at variable speeds and need to allow students the option of
repeating instructions or items as often as desired. The use of text-to-speech
for test items may not be a viable option if the construct tested is the ability
to read print. A caution to be aware of is that screen-readers will attempt to
pronounce acronyms (e.g., CRT) and abbreviations that contain vowels (e.g., AZ).
It is important to avoid these both in the text of test items and in the
alternative text or “alt tags” that are used. A text-based user interface is
required for the use of screen readers.
Instructions and test items presented in sign language. Since most students who read sign language also read print, this
accommodation would apply mostly to the use of multimedia item presentation
(e.g., items that use audio or video). Students need to be able to self-select
signed versions of audio or video instructions and test items. If sign language
is used, it needs to be large enough on the screen and have good resolution for
students to be able to determine subtle signs. Students also need to have the
option to repeat instructions or items. Reading the speech of a person on a Web
video is not feasible. Captioning in addition to signing may be the most
feasible option for audio or video presentations.
Instructions and test items presented in a language other than English.
Translated items in some languages may significantly increase the length of a
test, especially if the language requires phrases or explanations of English
words. Some students need English and native language versions of items
available at the same time. Computer-based testing may provide an advantage in
both of these situations for students who are computer literate and able to
scroll across and down long pages, and who can move between two versions of
items. For students using screen readers, it is important for the screen reading
software to recognize non-Latin based languages (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Hmong).
Audio versions in native languages need to be in a dialect familiar to the
student (e.g., a student from Mexico may have difficulty understanding a
translation from Spain).
The use of machine translations is
increasing. Yet, at this time, the translation may not be good enough to produce
valid test items. Tests developed in multiple languages, with human rather than
machine translation continue to be the most valid. Machine translators may be
useful as a dictionary or glossary for specific words or phrases. The
disadvantage of a human translator is the lack of standardized translation. For
example, an interpreter may change the difficulty of items through word choice,
explaining vocabulary for which there is not direct translation, or otherwise
coaching students.
Braille.
Tests that do not require students to read printed text (e.g., math tests) can
be read by a student with a screen reader that converts text into synthesized
speech. Tests that do require students to read printed text (e.g., reading
tests) could be read by a student with a screen reader that converts text into
Braille through a refreshable Braille device attached to the computer. For
students who are deaf and blind, all of the content must be in a text format so
that it can be converted to Braille. Images must also be accessible. The
Technology Act requires that “when an image represents a program element, the
information conveyed by the image must also be available in text.” Strategies
for this are described in the section on images and graphics below.
Highlighter and place holding templates. Students should be able to
self-select the use of a highlighting feature to mark words or phases within
test items, just as they might on paper/pencil tests.
Graphics or images that supplement text. The purpose of graphics and images
on an assessment is to aid in the understanding of an item, and not purely for
decorative purposes. That said, images can aid greatly in the understanding of
content, especially for students with learning disabilities and students whose
native language is not English. Pictures and other graphics cannot be directly
accessed by users of screen-readers or foreign language translation
applications. The Assistive Technology Act requires that “When an image
represents a program element, the information conveyed by the image must also be
available in text.” The Act goes on to state, “A text equivalent for every
non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt,” “longdesc,” or in element
content).” Images need to be selected carefully, with a concise, yet complete
description in an alt tag.
Tactile graphics or three-dimensional models
may be needed for images. It is also important to avoid the use of complex
backgrounds or wallpaper that may interfere with the readability of overlying
text. Simpler versions of any screens with complex backgrounds need to be
available.
Paper/pencil test format. Some students will continue to need paper and
pencil versions of tests. There are still many students who are not computer
literate. These students may, for example, be recent immigrants from countries
where computers are not used in instruction, or they may have had little formal
schooling in their home country. Other students may have had insufficient
opportunities to become computer literate in U.S. schools for a variety of
reasons. Some students need accommodations that have not been made available on
computer-based tests, especially if the assessments are graphics based rather
than text based.
Use of
color. Students need to be able to choose a variety of contrasting colors
for background and text. According to the Assistive Technology Act, computer
“applications shall not override user selected contrast and color selections and
other individual display attributes.” In addition, for the assistance of
students who are color blind or who are using monochrome monitors, the Assistive
Technology Act states, “Color coding shall not be used as the only means of
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
distinguishing a visual element…Web pages shall be designed so that all
information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example
from context or markup.” If color-coding is used to distinguish information,
some other distinguishing feature should also be present (such as an asterisk or
other textual indication).
Flashing or blinking text or objects. It is important to
avoid text or objects that flash or flicker at rates that may induce seizures in
people who are susceptible to them. The Assistive Technology Act requires that
“software shall not use flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements
having a flash or blink frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.”
Multiple column layout. Items that use
columns or tables need to be analyzed carefully to make sure that their linear
presentation order is logical, enabling screen readers to access the
information.
Captioning. As multi-media begins to be used for assessment presentation, it
will be important to provide synchronized captions or transcripts for the audio
portion of the content. Closed or open captioning for Web-based multimedia can
be provided in the same way as for television shows or movies.
Response
Accommodations
In Table 6 is an expanded list of response accommodations. For each of the accommodaitons, several considerations are listed. In the columns to the right of these considerations we indicate whether the accommodation is a built in feature, the need for the accommodation is not affected by being a computer-based test, or another accommodation (new or different) may be needed.
Table 6. Response Accommodations
| Accommodation |
Considerations for Computer-based
Tests |
1* |
2* |
3* |
| Write in test booklet |
Capacity for multiple options for
selecting response – mouse click, keyboard, touch screen, speech
recognition, assistive devices to access the keyboard (e.g., mouth stick or
head wand) Speech recognition capability |
X |
|
X |
| Scribe
|
Capacity for multiple options for
selecting response (see above)
**Speech recognition capability |
X |
|
X |
| Brailler |
Speech recognition capability |
|
X |
X |
| Tape recorder |
Speech recognition capability |
|
|
X |
| Paper/pencil response |
Student computer literacy Option for paper/pencil in
addition to computer (e.g., scratch paper for solving problems, drafting
ideas) Option for paper/pencil
in place of computer (e.g., extended response items) Speech recognition
capability |
|
X |
X |
| Spell check |
Capacity for any student to
self-select spell check option
Capacity to disable spell check option when spelling achievement is being
measured Spelling implications
when using speech recognition software |
X |
|
|
| Calculator |
Capacity for any student to
select calculator option |
X |
|
|
| English or bilingual
dictionary/glossary |
Capacity for any student to
self-select dictionary option
Capacity for Pop-up definitions of key words/phrases (built into assessment) Capacity for use of
multiple languages |
X |
X |
X |
*1 Built-in feature of universally designed
computer-based tests (available for self-selection by any student)
*2 Need for accommodation not affected by computer-based test
*3 New or different accommodation may be needed because of computer-based test
** According to Williams (2002), “The terms ‘speech recognition’ and ‘voice
recognition’ are sometimes used interchangeably; however, voice recognition is
primarily the task of determining the identity of a speaker, rather than the
content of his or her speech” (p. 43).
Write
in test booklet. There are many options for marking responses on
computer-based tests that are not available on paper. It would still be possible
for a student to dictate responses to a teacher, who would then mark them on the
computer. The option of speech recognition software is also becoming more
available. Speech recognition technology enables computers to translate human
speech into a written format. Students who use speech recognition need to be
tested in individual settings so as not to distract other test takers.
Currently, speech recognition only works for some people, while others,
especially those who are not native English speakers or those with speech
impairments, can be frustrated by the software’s lack of ability to
differentiate many of the sounds that they make. Some second language learners
have accents that do not work well with speech recognition software (e.g.,
speakers of tonal languages tend to carry those tones into English and the
software often does not recognize them). However, this technology is improving
rapidly to recognize speakers with a wider variety of regional and second
language accents (Williams, 2002). For example, according to Williams (p. 44):
Until recently, research on speech recognition for children used standard acoustic models based on a blend of adult voices. In order to improve the accuracy of recognition for children, researchers at IBM’s T.J. Watson Research Center have created a children’s acoustic model based on data collected from 800 children interviewed at multiple locations across the United States.
Research is also underway to allow students
to speak naturally, rather than the current practice of pausing slightly between
words. High-quality microphones improve recognition. Students who have tests
presented in their native language may have a difficult time responding using an
English alphabet keyboard if they are responding in a non-alphabet language. For
example, in Chinese, adults need to know thousands of individual characters to
read a text like a newspaper. Each character equals a word. So, Chinese computer
keyboards may have keys that represent pieces of characters (strokes) that have
to be combined together in a precise way to form a specific word.
Additional options that can enable students
to select responses independently include simple mouse clicks, using the
keyboard, touching the screen and assistive devices to access the keyboard
(e.g., mouth stick or head wand).
Scribe.
Many of the comments and cautions described in the previous paragraphs also
apply here. Students who are able to use speech recognition software may be able
to dictate written responses without the aid of a human scribe.
Other assistive technology may enable students to compose extended responses,
such as communication devices, a mouth stick or head wand.
Brailler. Some students may be able to use speech recognition software (with
the cautions described above) in place of a Brailler. Others will continue to
require or prefer the use of a Brailler.
Tape
recorder. Speech recognition software can take the place of a tape recorder
for many students, with the cautions described above.
Paper/pencil response. Some students will not have enough experience or
confidence using computers to be able to produce valid assessment responses and
may need to use paper/pencil test forms until they become computer literate.
Some students will only need paper for solving problems and drafting ideas,
while others will need to respond completely using a paper/pencil format, with
responses transferred to an electronic test form by a test administrator. Speech
recognition, with the cautions described above, may be a viable option for some
of these students.
Spell
check. The use of a spell check has been controversial on writing tests. It
is usually allowed in situations where spelling achievement is not measured, and
not allowed when spelling achievement is being measured. Spelling implications
need to be considered for students who use speech recognition software.
Calculator. As with the spell check, an online calculator option has been
controversial on mathematics tests. Calculator use is often allowed on
paper/pencil tests when arithmetic is not the construct being measured (Russell,
2002). However, standardization of the type of calculator used has been very
difficult and would be much easier if all students had the same online
calculator to use. Use of an online calculator is challenging for some students,
especially if they have not had practice with this tool in their daily work.
Currently, few teachers use computers in math instruction, so students are not
used to working on screens.
English
or bilingual dictionary/glossary. Students can self-select a dictionary
option, or simply click on key words for definitions in English or other
languages. Print copies of dictionaries could continue to be used if this option
is not available. And, as with the spell check option, it would need to be
disabled when finding the definition of a word is being tested.
Timing/Scheduling
Accommodations
Timing accommodations reflect changes in the amount of time a student has to complete an assessment, while scheduling accommodations are changes in the time of day in which a student is tested. Table 7 is an expanded list of timing and scheduling accommodations, with considerations and implications.
Table 7. Timing/Scheduling Accommodations
| Accommodation |
Considerations for Computer-based
Tests |
1* |
2* |
3* |
| Extended time |
Availability/location of
computers and peripherals
Flexible, individualized timing |
X |
X |
|
| Time of day beneficial to student
|
Capacity of network system Availability/location of
computers and peripherals Scheduling |
X |
X |
|
| Breaks during test
|
Maintaining place and saving
completed responses
Capacity to turn off monitor/ blank screen temporarily Test security |
|
X |
|
| Multiple test sessions, possibly
over multiple days |
Maintaining place and saving
completed responses
Test security |
|
X |
|
| Order of sub-test administration
|
Capacity of technology for
self-selection of subtest order
Test security Scheduling |
X |
X |
|
*1 Built-in feature of universally designed technology-based test (available
for self-selection by any student)
*2 Need for accommodation not affected by computer-based test
*3 New or different accommodation may be needed because of computer-based test
Extended time. Well-designed assessments—those designed for maximum
legibility and readability—take less time to complete than poorly designed
assessments. Still, it may require more time for students who are not computer
literate to take computer-based tests than it does for them to take paper/pencil
assessments. Allowing all students time to complete an assessment presents
scheduling challenges that need to be considered when planning test
administration. For example, groups of students cannot be scheduled for testing
in a computer lab every two hours if there are students who cannot finish in
that amount of time. It may be difficult for a student to log off one computer
and then log back on at another location to complete an assessment. However,
with the advent of wireless computers, it may be possible for a computer to be
used in any location.
Timing is no longer an issue for most
criterion-referenced tests, which tend to be untimed. Computerized adaptive
tests, where items are presented based on a student’s previous responses, tend
to be shorter in length than traditional large-scale tests, and usually take
less time to complete.
Time of
day beneficial to student. Currently, it is common for all test takers
within a building, district, or even state to be tested at the same time on the
same day. With computer-based testing, test times probably need to vary because
of the availability of computers and network capacity. This variability may
increase opportunities for individual students to be scheduled at test times
that are most beneficial for them. For example, a student who is more alert in
the morning because of medication could be tested during a morning session.
Breaks
and multiple test sessions. Technology is required for multiple test
sessions that would allow individual students to submit their completed
responses and be able to log out and back on again at another time, starting at
the place where they previously left off. For short breaks, it may be possible
to simply turn off the monitor or create a blank screen rather than logging out.
Careful scheduling is needed for multiple test sessions to make sure that
computers are available. Test security becomes an issue if students who have
responded to the same test items have opportunities to interact with each other
between test sessions. This can be alleviated through the use of item banks
large enough to make it unlikely that students would be exposed to the same
items. It might also be possible to block access to items completed during a
previous session. However, it is important for students to be able to return to
items that they skipped or did not complete, just as they can with paper/pencil
tests.
Order
of subtest administration. Tests can be set up to allow students to
self-select the order in which they take each subtest. The security issues
described above also apply here. If students within a room are not all working
on the same subtest, directions or other guidance from the test administrator
would need to be provided individually.
Setting
Accommodations
A list of commonly used setting
accommodations is provided in Table 8. For each accommodation, we provide both
considerations and implications for built in accommodations, no effect, and the
need for new or different accommodations.
Table 8. Setting Accommodations
| Accommodation |
Considerations for Computer-based
Tests |
1* |
2* |
3* |
| Individual or small group
administration |
Availability/location of
computers and peripherals
Grouping arrangements Use of earphones or
headphones Use of individual
setting if response method distracts other students (e.g., speech
recognition) |
X |
X |
|
| Preferential seating
|
Availability/location of
computers and peripherals |
X |
X |
|
| Special lighting
|
Minimize glare from windows or
overhead lights Contrast and color in item design |
X |
X |
|
| Adaptive or special furniture |
Types of adaptive furniture
needed and need for changes in computer location/ peripherals |
|
X |
X |
| Hospital/home/non-school
administration |
Availability/comparability/location of computers and peripherals
Test security |
|
X |
|
*1 Built-in feature of universally designed
computer-based test (available for self-selection by any student)
*2 Need for accommodation not affected by computer-based test
*3 New or different accommodation may be needed because of computer-based test
Individual or small group administration. Computer-based tests create
increased individualization for every student. Each student can be seated at a
separate computer station wearing ear/headphones for audio instructions or
items. Keyboard noise may be distracting for students not wearing headphones.
Students using speech recognition systems or other distracting response methods
need to be tested in individual settings.
Preferential seating. This becomes a non-issue when students are seated at
individual computer stations and do not need to focus on activity in a certain
part of the room. Configuration of the computer lab may influence seating
arrangements. For example, some students will need space around their computer
for assistive technology; others may need special lighting.
Special
lighting. Computer labs are usually set up to minimize glare from windows or
overhead lights. Many also contain incandescent lighting, which is less
distracting for students with attention deficits and produces better light for
students with visual impairments. In designing computer-based tests, it is
important to maximize contrast between the print and background and to ensure
that text and graphics are understandable when viewed without color, for
students who are color-blind or using monochrome monitors. Students should be
able to self-select text and background colors and shading that maximizes their
ability to read print on the screen.
Adaptive or special furniture. Students need comfortable access to a
computer screen and any peripheral presentation or response technology. These
arrangements need to be made on an individual basis with sufficient preparation
time.
Home/hospital/non-school administration. Computer-based tests present new
challenges for students who are tested in non-school locations. Students need
access to a laptop computer and a network connection (possibly wireless), along
with any individualized accommodations. It is important to make sure that the
equipment is comparable to that used by students assessed in school buildings.
With the reauthorization of Title I, nearly
all states are in the process of designing new assessments. As part of this
process, several states are considering the use of computer-based testing, since
this is the mode in which many students are already learning. Several states
have already begun designing and implementing computer-based testing. According
to a report to the National Governors Association (2002), “Testing by computer
presents an unprecedented opportunity to customize assessment and instruction to
more effectively meet students’ needs” (p. 8). Some of the potential
opportunities presented by the advent of computer-based testing include:
efficient administration, preferred by students, self-selection options for
students, improved writing performance, built-in accommodations, immediate
results, efficient item development, increased authenticity, and the potential
to shift focus from assessment to instruction. Of course, there remain many
challenges that must be overcome in order for computer-based testing to be
effective for large-scale state assessments. These include: issues of equity and
skill in computer use, added challenges for some students, technological
challenges, security of online data, lack of expertise in designing accessible
Web pages, and prohibitive development costs.
Because many accessibility features can be
built into computer-based tests, the validity of test results can be increased
for many students, including students with disabilities and English language
learners, without the addition of special accommodations. However, even though
items on universally designed assessments are accessible for most students,
there will still be some specialized accommodations, and computer-based testing
needs to be amenable to these accommodations. Students with disabilities will be
at a great disadvantage if paper/pencil tests are simply copied on screen
without any flexibility. Until the implications of the use of graphics versus
text-based user interfaces are considered and resolved, a large number of
students will need to continue to use paper/pencil tests, with a possible
reduction in the comparability of results, and an increase in administrative
time and potential errors when paper/pencil responses are transferred by a test
administrator to a computer for scoring.
There are many resources for building
accessible computer-based tests in order to keep from reinventing systems from
state to state. These are described throughout this report and listed in
Appendix A.
Several steps were described to assist groups
in the thoughtful development of computer-based tests. These include:
Step 1. Assemble a group of experts to guide
the transformation.
Step 2. Decide how each accommodation will be
incorporated into the computer-based test.
Step 3. Consider each accommodation or
assessment feature in light of the constructs being tested.
Step 4. Consider the feasibility of
incorporating the accommodation into the computer-based test.
Step 5. Consider training implications for staff and students.
Skipping any of these steps may result in the
design of assessments that exclude large numbers of students.
In conclusion, a report to the National’s
Governors Association (2002, p.9) sums up what we need to remember as
computer-based testing grows across the United States and throughout the world:
Do not forget why electronic assessment is desired. Electronic assessment will enable states to get test results to schools faster and, eventually, cheaper. It will help ensure assessment keeps pace with the tools that students are using for learning and with the ones that adults are increasingly using at work. The technology will also help schools improve and better prepare students for the next grade, for postsecondary learning, and for the workforce.
Anderson, M., Liu, K., Swierzbin, B.,
Thurlow, M., & Bielinski, J. (2000).
Bilingual accommodations for limited English proficient students on statewide
reading tests: Phase 2 (Minnesota Report 31). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Baker, E.L. (1999). Technology: Something’s
coming—something good. CRESST Policy Brief
2. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing.
Baker, E.L. (2002). Design of automated
authoring systems for tests. In National Research Council, Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead: Proceedings of a workshop.
Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bejar, I.I. (1995). From adaptive testing to
automated scoring of architectural simulations. In E.L. Mancall & P.G. Bashook
(Eds.), Assessing clinical reasoning: The oral
examination and alterative methods. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties.
Bennett, R.E. (1995). Computer-based testing
for examinees with disabilities: On the road to generalized accommodation. In S.
Messick (Ed.), Assessment in higher
education: Issues of access, student development, and public policy.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bennett, R.E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale
educational testing. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational
Testing Service. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
www.ets.org/research/pic/bennett.html
Bennett, R.E. (1999). Using new technology to
improve assessment. Educational
Measurement Issues and Practice, 18 (3), 5-12.
Bennett, R.E. (2001). How the Internet will
help large-scale assessment reinvent itself. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9 (5). Retrieved March, 2002,
from the World Wide Web: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n5.html
Bennett, R.E. (2002). An electronic
infrastructure for a future generation of tests. In H.F. O’Neil, Jr. & R. Perez
(Eds.), Technology applications in education: A
learning view. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bennett, R.E., Goodman, J., Hessinger, J.,
Ligget, J., Marshall, G., Kahn, H., & Zack, J. (1999). Using multimedia in
large-scale computer-based testing programs. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 283-294.
Bloodsworth, J.G. (1993). Legibility of print. Columbia, SC: ERIC
Accession No: ED 355497.
Bolt, D. & Crawford, R. (2000). Digital divide: Computers and our children’s
future. New York: TV Books.
Bowe, F. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Brown, P.J., & Augustine, A. (2001). Screen reading software as an assessment
accommodation: Implications for instruction and student performance. Paper
presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting,
Seattle, WA, April, 2001.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Boscardin, M.L. (1999). Computers as accessibility tools for students
with and without learning disabilities. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Boscardin, M.L., & Sireci,
S.G. (1999). Computer attitudes and
opinions of students with and without learning disabilities. Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts.
Burk, M. (1999).
Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for
students with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: A.U. Software.
Bushweller, K. (2000, June). Electronic
exams: Throw away the No. 2 pencils—here comes computerized testing. Electronic School, 20-24.
Calhoon, M.B., Fuchs, L.S., & Hamlett, C.L.
(2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance
assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271-282.
Campbell, L.M. & Waddell, C.D. (1997).
Technology-based curbcuts: How to build an accessible Web site. CAPED Communiqué, California Association
on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is Universal Design? North Carolina
State University: Center for Universal Design. Retrieved March, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: www.design.ncsu.edu
Chishold, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I.
(1999). Web content accessibility
guidelines. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Trace R & D Center.
Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505
Chung, W.K., Baker, E.L., & Cheak, A.M.
(2001). Knowledge mapper authoring system prototype.
(Final deliverable to OERI). Los Angeles: University of California, National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Chung, W.K., Klein, D.C.D., Herl, H.E., &
Bewley, W. (2001). Requirements
specification for a knowledge mapping authoring system. (Final deliverable
to OERI). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board. (1997). More than screen deep: toward every-citizen
interfaces to the nation’s information infrastructure. Washington DC:
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, National
Research Council, National Academy Press. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/screen
Daiute, C. (1985). Writing and computers, Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Dolan, R.P., & Hall, T.E. (2001). Universal
design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA Perspectives 27(4), 22-25. Retrieved
March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=2518
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., Hamlett,
C.L., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test
accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
Gershon, R., & Bergstrom, B. (1995). Does cheating on CAT pay: NOT! ERIC
ED392844.
Gitomer, D.H., Steinbert, L.L., & Mislevy,
R.J. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of
troubleshooting skills in an intelligent system. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Greenwood, C.R., & Rieth, H.J. (1994).
Current dimensions of technology-based assessment in special education. Exceptional Children, 61(2), 105-113.
Goldberg, L., & O’Neill, L.M. (2000, July).
Computer technology can empower students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Parent Magazine, 72-74.
Haaf, R., Duncan, B., Skarakis-Doyle, E.,
Carew, M., & Kapitan, P. (1999). Computer-based language assessment software:
The effects of presentation and response format. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 68-74.
Haas, C,. & Hayes, J.R. (1986) What did I
just say? Reading problems in writing with the machine. Research in the Teaching of English, 20 (1), 22-35.
Hamilton, L. S., Klein, S. P., & Lorie, W.
(2001). Using Web-based testing for large-scale
assessment. Santa Monica: RAND. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide
Web: www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP196/IP196.pdf
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., Harniss, M., &
Almond, P. (1999). Reliability and decision consistency: An analysis of writing
mode at two times on a statewide test. Educational Assessment, 6 (1), 23-40.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Kerrey, B. & Isakson, J. (2002). The power of the internet for learning:
moving from promise to practice—Report of the Web-based Education Commission.
Washington, DC: Web-based Education Commission. Retrieved March, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm.
Lahm, E.A., & Nickels, B.L. (1999). Assistive
technology competencies for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(1), 566-63.
Lewis, A. (2001). New directions in student testing and technology. APEC 2000
International Assessment Conference, Los Angeles.
Liu, K., Anderson, M., Swierzbin, B., &
Thurlow, M. (1999). Bilingual
accommodations for limited English proficient students on statewide reading
tests: Phase I (Minnesota Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Lunz, M.E., & Bergstrom, B.A. (1994). An
empirical study of computerized adaptive test administration conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31
(3), 251-263.
McBride, J.R. (1985). Computerized adaptive
testing. Educational Leadership, 43 (2), 25-28.
Menlove, M., & Hammond, M. (1998). Meeting
the demands of ADA, IDEA, and other disability legislation in the design,
development, and delivery of instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6 (1), 75-85.
Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.L., & Almond,
R.G. (1999). Evidence-centered assessment
design. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Morocco, C.C., & Neuman, S.B. (1986). Word
processors and the acquisition of writing strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(4), 243-248.
Mourant, R.R., Lakshmanan, R. & Chantadisai,
R. (1981). Visual fatigue and cathode ray
tube display factors. Human Factors,
23 (5), 529-546.
National Governors Association. (2002). Using electronic assessment to measure
student performance. Education Policy Studies Division: National Governors
Association. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/ELECTRONICASSESSMENT.pdf
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and
design of educational assessments. Washington, DC: Board on Testing and
Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead:
Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: Board on Testing and Assessment,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Academy Press.
Newman, F. & Scurry, J. (2001). Online
technology pushes pedagogy to the forefront.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47
(44). Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i44/44b00701.htm
Olson, L. (2002). Ed. dept. hints Idaho’s
novel testing plan unacceptable. Education
Week, 21
(21) 18,21. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://edweek.com/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=21Idaho.h21&keywords=Idaho
Ommerborn, R., & Schuemer, R. (2001). Using computers in distance study: Results of
a survey amongst disabled distance students.
FernUniversität-Gesamthochschule in Hagen. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF
Peters-Walters. S. (1998). Accessible Web
site design. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(5),
42-47.
Quality Counts (2002). Building blocks for success. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: www.educationweek.org.
Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., & Bielinski, J.
(2002).
Rethinking design and levels approaches to
federal inclusive assessment and accountability requirements (Working Paper).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Rivera, C., Stansfield, C.W., Scialdone, L.,
& Sharkey, M. (2000). An analysis of state
policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in
state assessment programs during 1998-1999. Arlington, VA: George Washington
University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for
learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15
(4). Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://jset.unlv.edu/15.4/issuemenu.html
Russell, M. (2002). How computer-based
technology can disrupt the technology of testing and assessment. In National
Research Council, Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead:
Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: Board on Testing and Assessment,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Academy Press.
Russell, M. & Haney, W. (1997). Testing
writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests
conducted via computers and via paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5 (3). Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
Russell M. & Haney.W. (2000). Bridging the
gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (19). Retrieved March, 2002,
from the World Wide Web:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19.html
Russell, M. & Plati, T. (2001). Effects of
computer versus paper administration of a state-mandated writing assessment. Teachers College Record. Retrieved March,
2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tcrecord.org
Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics of document design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stocking, M. (1996). Revising answers to items in computerized adaptive testing: A comparison
of three models. ETS Report Number ETS-RR-96-12. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Thompson, C. (1999). New word order: The
attack of the incredible grading machine.
Linguafranca, 9 (5). Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.linguafranca.com/9907/nwo.html
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow,
M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to
large-scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S., & Thompson, S.J.
(2002). 2001 state policies on assessment
participation and accommodations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Tindal, G. & Fuchs, L.S. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An
empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: University of
Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K.,
Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on
large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
Tinker. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Trotter, A. (2001). Testing computerized
exams. Education Week, 20 (37) 30-35. Retrieved March, 2002,
from the World Wide Web: www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=37online.h20
Vanderheiden, G. (2000). Fundamental
principles and priority setting for universal usability. Trace Research &
Development Center, Madison, WI. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/fundamental_princ_and_priority_acmcuu2000/index.htm
Waddell, C.D. (1997). Technology-based
curbcuts for government Web sites: Making your Web site accessible. ADA Update, National League of Cities.
Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical
considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive
format. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice,
12, 15-20.
Web Accessibility Initiative, World Wide Web
Consortium. Retrieved March, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
WebAIM (2001). Introduction to Web accessibility. Retrieved March, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: www.webaim.org/intro/
Williams, S.M. (2002). Speech recognition
technology and the assessment of beginning readers. In National Research
Council, Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead:
Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: Board on Testing and Assessment,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Academy Press.
Wissick, C.A., & Gardner, J.E. (2000).
Multimedia or not to multimedia? That is the question for students with learning
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32 (4), 34-43.
A-Prompt
Checks Web
pages for barriers to accessibility and making repairs to correct any problems,
A-Prompt will ensure that you are reaching the widest possible audience.
http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/
Ability Hub
Site
designed for people with disabilities who find operating a
computer difficult or impossible. Web site directs user to adaptive equipment
and alternative methods available for accessing computers. www.abilityhub.com
AbleData
Comprehensive directory of assistive technology products and vendors. Searchable
database of approximately 25,000 assistive devices. Fact sheets and consumer
guides. www.abledata.com
Adaptive Environments
In addition to numerous other services, Adaptive Environment’s New England
ADA & Accessible IT Center provides free technical assistance on: The Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act,
Section 255 of the Telecommunications, Accessibility of education-based
information technology (IT) www.adaptenv.org
Adaptive Solutions
Provides
services and technology for people who have: blindness, visually impairments,
and physically disabilities.
www.adaptsol.com
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Provides information, support and training which will allow individuals to
make informed decisions and build the skills required to both access and employ
technical tools. www.utoronto.ca/atrc
AI Squared
Providers of Zoom Text Xtra 7.1, Big Shot Magnifier, Zoom Text for DOS, and
VisAbility screen magnification programs. www.aisquared.com
Alliance for Technology Access
Network of community-based Resource Centers, Developers and Vendors,
Affiliates, and Associates dedicated to providing information and support
services to children and adults with disabilities, and increasing their use of
standard, assistive, and information technologies. www.ataccess.org
AlphaSmart, Inc.
Producers of AlphaSmart and Co:Writer; devices that support writing by word
prediction and spelling correction. www.alphasmart.com
American Educational Research Association
(AERA)
A professional organization comprised of scholars in all of the social
sciences related to educational research. Division D is concerned with
measurement and methodology and Division H addresses evaluation concerns.
www.aera.net
American Statistical Association
Homepage for professional organization has keyword search that links user to
related articles in Journal of Statistics Education. www.amstat.org
Apple Computer, Inc.
Provides application software guidelines that include information useful for
designing accessible software applications.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuidelines/HIGuidelines-2.html
Arizona State University College of
Education
Homepage covers all
aspects of education but see especially the directory entitled “Scholarly
Resources for Educational Research and Technology in Education.” www.ed.asu.edu/coe
Assistive Media
Provides free-of-charge, copyright-approved, high caliber audio literary
works to the world-wide disability community via the Internet.
www.assistivemedia.org
Assistive Technology Data Collection Project
Research project that
compiles reports on use and access of assistive technology. www.infouse.com/atdata/activities.html
Assistive Technology, Inc.
Provide innovative solutions to help people with learning, communication,
and access difficulties lead more independent and productive lives.
www.assistivetech.com
Assistive Technology Industry Association
Serves
as the collective voice of the Assistive Technology industry and represents the
interests of its members to business, government, education, and the many
agencies that serve people with disabilities. www.atia.org
Association for the Advancement of
Assistive Technology in Europe
Organization that focuses on: creating the awareness of assistive technology, promoting
Research & Development of assistive technology, contributing to knowledge
exchange within the field of assistive technology e.g. by arranging conferences,
and promoting information dissemination.
www.fernuni-hagen.de/FTB/AAATE.html#resources
Bartimaeus Group Adaptive Technology
Provides access
solutions for people who are blind or visually impaired and for agencies and
companies that must meet section 501, 504 and 508 requirements through: on-site adaptive technology training, JAWS scripting
for inaccessible application, technical support and troubleshooting, and web
page and usability testing.
www.bartsite.com
BrightEye Technology
Provide Scan-A-Word and Scan-A-Page products that read out loud any typed
text, such as books, magazines, newspapers, letters, and forms. This
also includes any text shown on the computer screen. www.brighteye.com
BrookesTalk
Developers of a Web browser for people with visual impairments called
BrookesTalk (in four languages), and currently developing interaction modes for
people with severe disabilities.
www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/cms/research/speech/btalk.htm
California State University, Northridge
Center on Disabilities
Offers training programs in assistive technology and sponsors an annual
conference entitled “Technology and Persons with Disabilities.”
www.csun.edu/cod/
CAP (Computer/Electronic Accommodations
Program)
Provides assistive technology accommodations and services to persons with
disabilities at the Department of Defense (DoD) and other Federal agencies at no
cost to the requesting organization. www.tricare.osd.mil/cap/
Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition (CARLA)
Language acquisition research center that has a page on computer-adapted
testing.http://carla.acad.umn.edu/
Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST)
Creators of “Bobby” and other tools to help Web page authors identify and
repair significant barriers to access by individuals with disabilities.
www.cast.org
Center for Computer Assistance for
the Disabled
Provide evaluation, information, referral and training where adaptive
access is concerned. www.c-cad.org
Center for Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (National) (CRESST)
National research center dedicated to K-12 research on student testing.
Provides technical reports on testing, accommodation of testing, and technology.
www.cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/index.htm
Closing The Gap
Product descriptions, prices and contact information. Searchable database of
computer-related products and services to assist persons with disabilities.
www.closingthegap.com
disABILITY Information and Resources
Resource directory of assistive technology products and vendors. www.makoa.org
DREAMMS for Kids, Inc.
A non-profit parent and professional agency that specializes in assistive
technology related research, development and information dissemination.
www.dreamms.org
Dyslexic.com
Provide software, gadgets, and other products for people with dyslexia,
visual impairments and other disabilities. www.dyslexic.com
Educational Testing Service
Site has a variety of files including a set on computer-based testing (CBT).
The ETS Presidential Files contain extensive information on “What Every School
Should Know About Testing Students with Disabilities.” www.ets.org
Equal Access to Software and Innovation
(EASI)
Provides information and guidance in the area of access-to-information
technologies by individuals with disabilities through on-line courses.
www.isc.rit.edu/~easi/easi/alleasi.htm
ERIC Clearinghouse on Information &
Technology (ERIC/IT)
Eric Infoguides are available at this site with titles like: Authentic
Assessment, Outcome-Based Education, Technology-Plans, and Testing.
www.ericit.org
ESL Café.com
On-line discussion site with discussion about computer adapted tests.
www.eslcafe.com/discussion/db/index.cgi?read=2248
Frank Audiodata
Provides Blindows and other screen and text reading technologies.
www.audiodata.de
Freedom of Speech
Providers of assistive technologies such as Naturally Speaking and other
products aimed at assisting people with: blindness, low vision, learning
disabilities, necessity for augmentative communication, and mobility
impairments. www.freedomofspeech.com
Freedom Scientific
Provider of computer-based technology for people with low vision and
blindness. Products include JAWS (Job Access with Speech) screen readers and
WYNN (What You Need to kNow). www.freedomscientific.com
GW Micro, Inc.
Producers of Vocal-Eyes and Window-Eyes screen readers and screen Brailler
programs. www.gwmicro.com
Helen A. Keller Institute for Human
disAbilities, George Mason University
Conducts training and research and offers graduate degree programs in
assistive technology. http://condor.gmu.edu/proto/gse/proto6/pages/keller.html
Humanware, Inc.
Specializes in assistive technology for persons who have difficulties
reading print due to blindness, low vision, or learning and/or reading
disabilities. Programs provided include: Braille Note, Voice Note, JAWS for
Windows, Window-Eyes, Dolphin, outspoken, Mountbatten Pro, Kurzweil, textHELP
and SmartView2. www.humanware.com
IBM Accessibility Center
Provides accessibility guidelines for Web sites and applications.
www.ibm.com/able/accessweb.htm
Infinitec, Inc.
A non-profit corporation
formed to help people with disabilities and their families access life-enhancing
technology. www.infinitec.org
Institute for Matching Person & Technology
Works to better match users of technologies with the most appropriate
devices for their use. The Institute works to enhance the situation of
technology users through research, assessment, training and consultation.
http://members.aol.com/IMPT97/MPT.html
Kurzweil Educational Products
Producers of Kruzweil 1000 and 3000, which have both screen reader and voice
recognition capabilities as well as the Magna Reader that scans and enlarges
printed information onto a computer screen. www.kurzweiledu.com
Lernout & Hauspie
Provider of advanced translation technologies such as: speech recognition,
voice synthesis, sound compression, and language-to-language instant
translation. www.lhsl.com
Matias, Inc.
Inventors of the “half keyboard” for one-handed typing. www.halfkeyboard.com
Microsoft Accessibility
Resource for finding assistive technology solutions on Windows-based computer.
www.microsoft.com/enable
MultiWeb (Deakin University, Australia)
Free, downloadable software for sighted users to access the World Wide Web.
www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/asaw/exhib/awvs/multimedia/deakin.htm#top
National Center for Accessible Media
Researches and promotes the development of technologies that create access
to public mass media and media policies. www.ncam.wgbh.org
On the Internet Magazine
On-line magazine with a special feature on guidelines for computer-based
testing. www.isoc.org/oti/articles/0500/olsen.html
Open Group
Provides information on application software guidelines
that include information useful for designing accessible software applications.
www.opengroup.org/publications/catalog/mo.htm
Question Mark Computing
A site devoted to Computer Aided Assessment. Features QM Web, a system for
delivering tests, exams, tutorials and surveys on the World Wide Web.
www.qmark.com
Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive
Technology Society of America (RESNA)
An interdisciplinary association of people with a common interest in
technology and disability. Our purpose is to improve the potential of people
with disabilities to achieve their goals through the use of technology.
www.resna.org
RehabTool.com
Assistive and adaptive technology information, products and services for
children and adults with disabilities. www.rehabtool.com
Society for Technical Education’s
“Usability” Special Interest Group
A forum to share information and experiences on issues related to the
usability and user-centered design. www.stcsig.org/usability/index.html
SoundLinks
Provide training, consultancy,
installation and support for a range of speech-based internet products such as Home Page Reader
and pwWebSpeak, as well as other alternative
access methods. www.soundlinks.com
Synapse Adaptive
Creators of Synapse Adaptive Workstations that provide universal computer
access to users regardless of their disability as well as other language
translation, speech recognition and screen reading programs.
www.synapseadaptive.com
Telesensory
Provider of video magnifiers and scanners (“reading machines”) for assisting
people with visual impairments and blindness with reading. www.telesensory.com
TESOL Testing and Evaluation Special
Interest Group
Web site with pages dedicated to best practices of evaluating English as a
Second or Other Language using computers. www.taesig.8m.com/createx.html
TOEFL.org
Provides information on the computer-adapted version of the Test of English
as a Foreign Language test. www.toefl.org/educator/edcomptest.html
Trace Center
Non-profit research center focused on making standard computer technologies and
systems more accessible for people with disabilities. www.trace.wisc.edu
Washington Assistive Technology Alliance
Consumer advocacy network for information
and referrals, consultation and training on selected AT devices. www.wata.org
Web Accessibility Initiative
Pursues accessibility of the Web through five primary areas of work:
technology, guidelines, tools, education and outreach, and research and
development. www.w3.org/WAI/
WebABLE
Provides accessibility technology and services to corporate, government,
educational, and non-profit clients. www.webable.com
Web AIM (Accessibility in Mind)
Provides background information, training courses and information about
products related to making the World Wide Web accessible to people with varying
disabilities. www.webaim.org
World Wide Web Consortium
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable
technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) for the World
Wide Web. www.w3.org
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). PART
1194
-- ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS
Subpart A -- General
§ 1194.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to implement
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d).
Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or
use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities
have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access
and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless
an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that
individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information
or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and
data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals
with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
§ 1194.2 Application.
(a) Products covered by this part shall
comply with all applicable provisions of this part. When developing, procuring,
maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each agency shall
ensure that the products comply with the applicable provisions of this part,
unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
(1) When compliance with the provisions of
this part imposes an undue burden, agencies shall provide individuals with
disabilities with the information and data involved by an alternative means of
access that allows the individual to use the information and data.
(2) When procuring a product, if an agency
determines that compliance with any provision of this part imposes an undue
burden, the documentation by the agency supporting the procurement shall explain
why, and to what extent, compliance with each such provision creates an undue
burden.
(b) When procuring a product, each agency
shall procure products which comply with the provisions in this part when such
products are available in the commercial marketplace or when such products are
developed in response to a Government solicitation. Agencies cannot claim a
product as a whole is not commercially available because no product in the
marketplace meets all the standards. If products are commercially available that
meet some but not all of the standards, the agency must procure the product that
best meets the standards.
(c) Except as provided by §1194.3(b), this
part applies to electronic and information technology developed, procured,
maintained, or used by agencies directly or used by a contractor under a
contract with an agency which requires the use of such product, or requires the
use, to a significant extent, of such product in the performance of a service or
the furnishing of a product.
§ 1194.3 General exceptions.
(a) This part does not apply to any
electronic and information technology operated by agencies, the function,
operation, or use of which involves intelligence activities, cryptologic
activities related to national security, command and control of military forces,
equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system, or systems
which are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence
missions. Systems which are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or
intelligence missions do not include a system that is to be used for routine
administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance, logistics,
and personnel management applications).
(b) This part does not apply to electronic
and information technology that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a
contract.
(c) Except as required to comply with the
provisions in this part, this part does not require the installation of specific
accessibility-related software or the attachment of an assistive technology
device at a workstation of a Federal employee who is not an individual with a
disability.
(d) When agencies provide access to the
public to information or data through electronic and information technology,
agencies are not required to make products owned by the agency available for
access and use by individuals with disabilities at a location other than that
where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public, or to
purchase products for access and use by individuals with disabilities at a
location other than that where the electronic and information technology is
provided to the public.
(e) This part shall not be construed to
require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
(f) Products located in spaces frequented
only by service personnel for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring of
equipment are not required to comply with this part.
§ 1194.4 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Agency.
Any Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service.
Alternate formats. Alternate formats usable
by people with disabilities may include, but are not limited to, Braille, ASCII
text, large print, recorded audio, and electronic formats that comply with this
part.
Alternate methods. Different means of providing information, including
product documentation, to people with disabilities. Alternate methods may
include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, relay service, TTY, Internet
posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and audio description.
Assistive technology. Any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities.
Electronic and information technology. Includes information technology and
any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used
in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. The term
electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited to,
telecommunications products (such as telephones), information kiosks and
transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment
such as copiers and fax machines. The term does not include any equipment that
contains embedded information technology that is used as an integral part of the
product, but the principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage,
manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange,
transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC (heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats or temperature
control devices, and medical equipment where information technology is integral
to its operation, are not information technology.
Information technology. Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem
of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation,
management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or
reception of data or information. The term information technology includes
computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar procedures,
services (including support services), and related resources.
Operable controls. A component of a product that requires physical contact
for normal operation. Operable controls include, but are not limited to,
mechanically operated controls, input and output trays, card slots, keyboards,
or keypads.
Product.
Electronic and information technology.
Self
Contained, Closed Products. Products that generally have embedded software
and are commonly designed in such a fashion that a user cannot easily attach or
install assistive technology. These products include, but are not limited to,
information kiosks and information transaction machines, copiers, printers,
calculators, fax machines, and other similar types of products.
Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by
the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.
TTY.
An abbreviation for teletypewriter. Machinery or equipment that employs
interactive text based communications through the transmission of coded signals
across the telephone network. TTYs may include, for example, devices known as
TDDs (telecommunication display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf
persons) or computers with special modems. TTYs are also called text telephones.
Undue
burden. Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining
whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency shall consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product is
being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
§ 1194.5 Equivalent facilitation.
Nothing in this part is intended to prevent
the use of designs or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed in this
part provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and
use of a product for people with disabilities.
Subpart B -- Technical Standards
§ 1194.21 Software applications and
operating systems.
(a) When software is designed to run on a
system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a
keyboard where the function itself or the result of performing a function can be
discerned textually.
(b) Applications shall not disrupt or disable
activated features of other products that are identified as accessibility
features, where those features are developed and documented according to
industry standards. Applications also shall not disrupt or disable activated
features of any operating system that are identified as accessibility features
where the application programming interface for those accessibility features has
been documented by the manufacturer of the operating system and is available to
the product developer.
(c) A well-defined on-screen indication of
the current focus shall be provided that moves among interactive interface
elements as the input focus changes. The focus shall be programmatically exposed
so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.
(d) Sufficient information about a user
interface element including the identity, operation and state of the element
shall be available to assistive technology. When an image represents a program
element, the information conveyed by the image must also be available in text.
(e) When bitmap images are used to identify
controls, status indicators, or other programmatic elements, the meaning
assigned to those images shall be consistent throughout an application's
performance.
(f) Textual information shall be provided
through operating system functions for displaying text. The minimum information
that shall be made available is text content, text input caret location, and
text attributes.
(g) Applications shall not override user
selected contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes.
(h) When animation is displayed, the
information shall be displayable in at least one non-animated presentation mode
at the option of the user.
(i) Color coding shall not be used as the
only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response,
or distinguishing a visual element.
(j) When a product permits a user to adjust
color and contrast settings, a variety of color selections capable of producing
a range of contrast levels shall be provided.
(k) Software shall not use flashing or
blinking text, objects, or other elements having a flash or blink frequency
greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
(l) When electronic forms are used, the form
shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field
elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form,
including all directions and cues.
§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and
internet information and applications.
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text
element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).
(b) Equivalent alternatives for any
multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation.
(c) Web pages shall be designed so that all
information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example
from context or markup.
(d) Documents shall be organized so they are
readable without requiring an associated style sheet.
(e) Redundant text links shall be provided
for each active region of a server-side image map.
(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided
instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined
with an available geometric shape.
(g) Row and column headers shall be
identified for data tables.
(h) Markup shall be used to associate data
cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of
row or column headers.
(i) Frames shall be titled with text that
facilitates frame identification and navigation.
(j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing
the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
(k) A text-only page, with equivalent
information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with
the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other
way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary
page changes.
(l) When pages utilize scripting languages to
display content, or to create interface elements, the information provided by
the script shall be identified with functional text that can be read by
assistive technology.
(m) When a web page requires that an applet,
plug-in or other application be present on the client system to interpret page
content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies with
§1194.21(a) through (l).
(n) When electronic forms are designed to be
completed on-line, the form shall allow people using assistive technology to
access the information, field elements, and functionality required for
completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
(o) A method shall be provided that permits
users to skip repetitive navigation links.
(p) When a timed response is required, the
user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is
required.
Note to §1194.22: 1. The
Board interprets paragraphs (a) through (k) of this section as consistent with
the following priority 1 Checkpoints of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0 (WCAG 1.0) (May 5, 1999) published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of
the World Wide Web Consortium:
(Updated March 29, 2001)
WebAIM (Web
Accessibility in Mind) educates and trains web developers, university faculty
and administrators on Web Accessibility issues. WebAIM is an initiative of the
Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University and is funded
through the U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP).
No official endorsement is inferred.
Part 1: for HTML
The following standards are excerpted from
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, §1194.22. Everything in the left hand
column is a direct quote from Section 508. The other two columns are only meant
to serve as helpful guidelines to comply with Section 508. These guidelines are
suggestions only, and are not part of the official Section 508 document. For the
full text of Section 508, please see
http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm.
| SEC. 508 STANDARD Section 1194.22 |
PASS |
FAIL |
| A text equivalent for every non-text element
shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). [See Note 1] |
Every image, Java applet, Flash file, video file,
audio file, plug-in, etc. has an alt description. Complex graphics (graphs, charts, etc.) are
accompanied by detailed text descriptions. The
alt descriptions succinctly describe the purpose
of the objects, without being too verbose (for simple objects) or too vague
(for complex objects). Alt descriptions for images used as
links are descriptive of the link destination. Decorative graphics with no other function have
empty alt descriptions (alt= ""), but they
never have missing alt descriptions. |
A non-text element has no
alt description. Complex graphics have no alternative text, or the
alternative does not fully convey the meaning of the graphic. Alt descriptions are verbose, vague,
misleading, inaccurate or redundant to the context (e.g. the alt text is the
same as the text immediately preceding or following it in the document). Alt descriptions for images used as
links are not descriptive of the link destination. Purely decorative graphics have
alt descriptions that say "spacer, "decorative graphic," or other titles
that only increase the time that it takes to listen to a page when using a
screen reader. |
| (b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia
presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation |
Multimedia files have synchronized
captions. |
Multimedia files do not have captions, or
captions which are not synchronized. |
| (c) Web pages shall be designed so that all
information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example
from context or markup. |
If color is used to convey important information,
an alternative indicator is used, such as an asterisk (*) or other symbol. Contrast is good. |
The use of a color monitor is required. Contrast is poor. |
| (d)
Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet. |
Style
sheets may be used for color, indentation and other presentation effects,
but the document is still understandable (even if less visually appealing)
when the style sheet is turned off. |
The
document is confusing or information is missing when the style sheet is
turned off. |
| (e)
Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a
server-side image map. |
Separate text links are provided outside of the server-side image map to
access the same content that the image map hot spots access. |
The
only way to access the links of a server-side image map is through the image
map hot spots, which usually means that a mouse is required and that the
links are unavailable to assist. tech. |
| (f)
Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps
except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric
shape. |
Standard HTML client-side image maps are used, and appropriate alt tags are
provided for the image as well as the hot spots. |
Server-side image maps are used when a client-side image map would suffice. |
| (g)
Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables. |
Data
tables have the column and row headers appropriately identified (using the
<th> tag)
Tables used strictly for layout purposes do NOT have header rows or
columns. |
Data
tables have no header rows or columns.
Tables used for layout use the header attribute when there is no true header |
| (h)
Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data
tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers. |
Table
cells are associated with the appropriate headers (e.g. with the id, headers,
scope and/or axis HTML attributes). |
Columns and rows are not associated with column and row headers, or they are
associated incorrectly. |
| (i)
Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and
navigation. |
Each
frame is given a title that helps the user understand the frame's purpose. |
Frames have no titles, or titles that are not descriptive of the frame's
purpose. |
| (j)
Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a
frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. |
No
elements on the page flicker at a rate of 2 to 55 cycles per second, thus
reducing the risk of optically-induced seizures. |
One
or more elements on the page flicker at a rate of 2 to 55 cycles per second,
increasing the risk of optically-induced seizures. |
| (k) A text-only page,
with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a
web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be
accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be
updated whenever the primary page changes.
[See Note 2] |
A
text-only version is created only when there is no other way to make the
content accessible, or when it offers significant advantages over the "main"
version for certain disability types. The text-only version is
up-to-date with the "main" version.
The text-only version provides the functionality equivalent to that of the
"main" version
An alternative is provided for components (e.g. plug-ins, scripts) that are
not directly accessible. |
A
text-only version is provided only as an excuse not to make the "main"
version fully accessible.
The text-only version is not up-to-date with the "main" version.
The text-only version is an unequal, lesser version of the "main" version.
No alternative is provided for components that are not directly accessible. |
| (l)
When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create
interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be
identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
[See Note 3] |
Information within the scripts is text-based, or a text alternative is
provided within the script itself, in accordance with (a) in these
standards. All scripts (e.g. Javascript
pop-up menus) are either directly accessible to assistive technologies
(keyboard accessibility is a good measure of this), or an alternative method
of accessing equivalent functionality is provided (e.g. a standard HTML
link). |
Scripts include graphics-as-text with no true text alternative.
Scripts only work with a mouse, and there is no keyboard-accessible
alternative either within or outside of the script. |
| (m) When a web page
requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the
client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a
plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l).
[See Notes 4-6] |
A
link is provided to a disability-accessible page where the plug-in can be
downloaded.
All Java applets, scripts and plug-ins (including Acrobat PDF files and
PowerPoint files, etc.) and the content within them are accessible to
assistive technologies, or else an alternative means of accessing equivalent
content is provided. |
No
link is provided to a page where the plug-in can be downloaded and/or the
download page is not disability-accessible. Plugins, scripts and other
elements are used indiscriminately, without alternatives for those who
cannot access them. |
| (n)
When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form shall
allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field
elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the
form, including all directions and cues. |
All
form controls have text labels adjacent to them. Form elements have labels
associated with them in the markup (i.e. the id and for, HTML elements).
Dynamic HTML scripting of the form does not interfere with assistive
technologies. |
Form
controls have no labels, or the labels are not adjacent to the controls. There
is no linking of the form element and its label in the HTML.
Dynamic HTML scripting makes parts of the form unavailable to assistive
technologies. |
| (o) A
method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation
links. |
A
link is provided to skip over lists of navigational menus or other lengthy
lists of links. |
There
is no way to skip over lists of links. |
| (p)
When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given
sufficient time to indicate more time is required. |
The
user has control over the timing of content changes. |
The
user is required to react quickly, within limited time restraints. |
Note 1: Until the longdesc
tag is better supported, it is impractical to use.
Note 2: "Text-only" and "accessible" are NOT
synonymous. Text-only sites may help people with certain types of visual
disabilities, but are not always helpful to those with cognitive, motor or
hearing disabilities.
Note 3: At this time, many elements of Dynamic
HTML (client-side scripted HTML, which is usually accomplished with Javascript)
cannot be made directly accessible to assistive technologies and keyboards,
especially when the onMouseover command is used. If an onMouseover (or similar)
element does not contain any important information (e.g. the script causes a
button to "glow"), then there is no consequence for accessibility. If this
scripted event reveals important information, then a keyboard-accessible
alternative is required.
Note 4: When embedded into web pages, few
plug-ins are currently directly accessible. Some of them e.g. RealPlayer) are
more accessible as standalone products. It may be better to invoke the whole
program rather than embed movies into pages at this point, although this may
change in the future.
Note 5: Acrobat Reader 5.0 allows screen readers
to access PDF documents. However, not all users have this version installed, and
not all PDF documents are text-based (some are scanned in as graphics), which
renders them useless to many assistive technologies. It is recommended that an
accessible HTML version be made available as an alternative to PDF.
Note 6: PowerPoint files are currently not directly accessible unless the user has a full version of the PowerPoint program on the client computer (and not just the PowerPoint viewer). It is recommended that an accessible HTML version be provided as well.
Part 2: for Scripts, Plug-ins, Java,
etc.
The following standards are excerpted from
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, §1194.21. For the full text of Section
508, please see http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm.
| SEC. 508
STANDARD Section 1194.21 |
| (a)
When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product
functions shall be executable from a keyboard where the function itself or
the result of performing a function can be discerned textually. |
| (b)
Applications shall not disrupt or disable activated features of other
products that are identified as accessibility features, where those features
are developed and documented according to industry standards. Applications
also shall not disrupt or disable activated features of any operating system
that are identified as accessibility features where the application
programming interface for those accessibility features has been documented
by the manufacturer of the operating system and is available to the product
developer. |
| (c) A
well-defined on-screen indication of the current focus shall be provided
that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus changes.
The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can
track focus and focus changes. |
| (d)
Sufficient information about a user interface element including the
identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive
technology. When an image represents a program element, the information
conveyed by the image must also be available in text. |
| (e)
When bitmap images are used to identify controls, status indicators, or
other programmatic elements, the meaning assigned to those images shall be
consistent throughout an application's performance. |
| (f)
Textual information shall be provided through operating system functions for
displaying text. The minimum information that shall be made available is
text content, text input caret location, and text attributes. |
| (g)
Applications shall not override user selected contrast and color selections
and other individual display attributes. |
| (h)
When animation is displayed, the information shall be displayable in at
least one non-animated presentation mode at the option of the user. |
| (i)
Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information,
indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
element. |
| (j)
When a product permits a user to adjust color and contrast settings, a
variety of color selections capable of producing a range of contrast levels
shall be provided. |
| (k)
Software shall not use flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements
having a flash or blink frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. |
| (l)
When electronic forms are used, the form shall allow people using assistive
technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality
required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions
and cues. |
Design Considerations
Introductory Screens
The first screen of a site which contains only graphics and no introductory text
provides little, if any, information about the site for the users of some
screen-readers. A lack of introductory text may also be problematic for
individuals who are using a text-only browser, a browser with picture loading
disabled or a portable wireless device such as a cellular phone or Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA). The first screen should contain at least some text.
Design Consistency
The use of consistent design strategies for all related documents will make
navigation easier for everyone. A consistent look and feel, across all pages of
a site, aids visitors in identifying ownership of a page. Provide a method for
bypassing navigational controls at the top of each page, allowing users of
adaptive technology to jump directly to the content of the page. Once you have
designed an accessible and effective page, use it as a template for all other
pages of the site.
Document Length
Different users will access documents differently. One user may access the site
more easily in smaller sections, while another may find a larger document easier
to manage. Present larger documents in smaller sub-units and offer complete
text-only versions for download.
Frames
Frames used to divide a browser screen into smaller and separate sub-units can
be very inaccessible to persons using screen-readers or screen magnification
applications. Some browsers may not be able to handle frames. Avoid the use of
frames, use the HTML <noframes> element or include clear alternative methods
(e.g., a link to a no-frames page) that provides the user with all of the
information presented in the frames-based version.
Browser-Specific HTML Tags
Some HTML tags are specific to a particular browser. Use of such
browser-specific tags may cause page elements to display incorrectly or not at
all. Remember, your site is for conveying information to visitors with a variety
of skills, interests, equipment and abilities. Do not use HTML constructs (tags)
that are specific to (and only supported by) one Web Browser. Test your Web
pages with a variety of Web browsers. You might be surprised to see how the page
you designed for one browser looks when using another.
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
Cascading Style Sheets allow Web site designers to produce Web pages with a
consistent look that can be easily updated. Because style sheets can be used to
affect the appearance of an entire page, they can be used to enhance
accessibility. However, Web pages that use CSS should degrade gracefully in
order that the information will be accessible to browsers that do not support
CSS and browsers in which CSS support has been disabled.
Scripts
Web page authors have a responsibility to provide script information in a
fashion that can be read by assistive technology. Screen-readers will often read
the content of a script as a meaningless jumble of numbers and letters, when
functional text that conveys an accurate description as to what is being
displayed by the script is not included.
Example:
If the function of a script is to fill the
contents of an HTML form with basic default values, the text inserted into the
form by the script should be accessible to a screen-reader. In contrast, if a
script is used to display menu choices when the user moves the pointer over an
icon, functional text for each menu choice cannot be specified and a redundant
text link must be provided for each menu item.
Automated Functions
Roll-over Controls (onmouseover)
Roll-over controls that move the user from the current location can make
navigation difficult or impossible for visitors using a screen-reader, those who
have trouble controlling a mouse and those whose equipment does not support a
mouse or similar pointing device. Do not use roll-overs in a drop-down list.
Instead, use a separate button to initiate a drop-down menu selection.
Roll-overs that change the appearance of a
control or cause additional information to be displayed do not cause a problem
for screen-reader users and may provide useful feedback for users with learning
disabilities or mobility impairments. However, screen-reader users will not be
able to access pop-up information or menus. Be sure to include the text of
pop-up information in the ALT tag for the graphic and provide redundant links
for pop-up menu items.
Screen Refresh
Automatic refreshing of a page may prevent access to the information for users
of screen-readers, screen magnification applications and individuals with
learning or cognitive impairments. A method for disabling the automatic
refreshing of a page or site must be provided.
Timed Responses
When a timed response is required, the user must be alerted and given an
opportunity to indicate that more time is necessary.
Text Presentation
Font (Face, Size and Color)
Whether it is merely personal preference or necessitated by a visual impairment,
individuals may view pages using font sizes or color schemes other than those
originally intended. Do not use font face alone to convey information. Be sure
that information on a page remains clear and accessible when viewed in different
font sizes. It is a good practice to review pages using a variety of font sizes,
from the largest available to the smallest.
Visitors must be able to vary the size of the
display font. Specify font sizes as relative values rather than absolute. CSS
allows font-size to be defined in a number of ways. Specifying font size in ems
— rather than pixels — is the preferred method for web accessibility, as it is
relative to the user's default font size.
| CORRECT |
INCORRECT |
| Font-size: 1.5em |
font-size: 12px |
Color alone should not be used to convey
information — this information may be inaccessible to individuals who are
color-blind, screen-reader users, individuals with low-vision, users of some
hand-held devices, and individuals using a monochrome display. When using
colored text and/or a colored background, be sure that the contrast between the
text and the background is significantly high at all color depths. Some optimal
text and background combinations for those with color vision anomalies include
black on white, white on black, yellow on black and black on yellow.
Backgrounds and Wallpaper
Graphical backgrounds and wallpaper should not be used to convey information.
Highly detailed or "busy" backgrounds and wallpaper should be avoided, as they
may make it difficult or impossible to discern the overlying text. Check the
readability of text against a background by reviewing the page in black and
white and by using a variety of font sizes, color depths, screen resolutions,
platforms and browsers.
Blinking Text and Marquees
Blinking text and marquees (text that scrolls automatically on the screen) may
be troublesome for persons with visual or cognitive impairments. Blinking text
may trigger a seizure in people with photosensitive epilepsy. Do not use the
blink or marquee elements. Screen elements that flicker or change must do so at
a frequency of less than twice a second (2 Hz) or greater than 55 times a second
(55 Hz).
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and abbreviations may not be clear to all individuals visiting your
site. Screen-readers will attempt to pronounce acronyms and abbreviations that
contain vowels — these pronunciations may be misleading or unintelligible to the
screen-reader user. The first occurrence of an acronym in the body of a document
should be preceded by the full title to which the acronym refers — Computer
Accommodations Program (CAP).
When used as part of a link, the <ACRONYM>
and <ABBR> elements should be used to denote and expand acronyms and
abbreviations. The <ACRONYM> tag will cause the full text to which the acronym
refers to be read by a screen-reader and visibly displayed when a mouse pointer
is placed on the link containing the acronym. The <ABBR> tag does not visibly
display any text — the expanded text is read by screen-readers only.
Examples:
<ABBR title="Minnesota">MN</ABBR>
<ACRONYM title="University of Minnesota">UMN</ACRONYM>
Although it is mostly a matter of personal
preference and common sense, the following guidelines may help to determine when
to use the <ABBR> tag and when to use the <ACRONYM> tag:
Use the <ABBR> tag for familiar abbreviations
and acronyms (e.g., FYI, ASAP, CST/CDT, lbs. and the like).
Use the <ACRONYM> tag any time the acronym
refers to a place, organization or other proper noun. This will aid sighted
visitors in identifying the acronym.
Note: The <ABBR> and <ACRONYM> elements are
part of the HTML 4.0 specifications and may not be interpreted by some browsers
— they will probably not be recognized by most text-only browsers, such as Lynx.
Bullets
Use an asterisk (*), a single letter (A) or single number(1) as the alternative
text for graphical bullets.
List Tags
Some screen-readers may not automatically detect bullets and numbers created
using an HTML list tag — unordered list <UL> and ordered list <OL>. Therefore,
avoid the use of the HTML <OL> tag to create numbered lists, when the number is
to be referenced elsewhere in the document. Number the list manually as an
alternative to using numbered list tags.
Punctuation
The use of punctuation may aid the understanding of Web page information for
users of screen-readers. Although section headings and individual list items may
be visually distinct, it is often beneficial to screen-reader users to have
headings, list items and similar elements end with or be separated by suitable
punctuation. The text color for punctuation symbols used in this manner may be
the same as the background color on which they appear, when the use of such
punctuation is found to be visually distracting.
Multiple Column Layout
Tables: static
When tables are coded inaccurately or table codes are used for non-tabular
material (e.g., newspaper style columns), some screen-reader users may find it
difficult or impossible to access the information. The presentation of materials
in a tabular or multicolumn format may be difficult to access for visitors with
low-vision, cognitive impairments, visual tracking impairments and for users of
some hand-held devices. When tables are used to present information, be sure
appropriate coding is used and a de-columnized version or other means of
acquiring the information is available.
Tables: dynamic
When the information in a table is created dynamically (generated based on user
input/responses), use appropriate coding and provide a de-columnized version or
other means of acquiring the information. It may be impractical or technically
difficult to provide a de-columnized alternative when a table itself is created
dynamically. Where it is not reasonable to accommodate a de-columnized version,
alternative options (e.g., telephone, E-mail, postal mail or in-person) for
obtaining the information should be made available and noted on the page.
Graphics
Alt Tags
Pictures and other graphics cannot be directly accessed by users of
screen-readers, foreign language translation applications or some hand-held
devices. Similarly, some users choose to turn picture loading off — especially
those users with slower dial-in connections. An ALT tag is used to specify
alternative text for an image. For example, the tag <IMG SRC="UpArrow.gif"
ALT="Up Arrow"> (where UpArrow.gif is the picture of an upward-pointing arrow)
will result in the image of an upward-pointing arrow being displayed by
graphical browsers with image-loading enabled. The text “Up Arrow” will be
spoken by a screen-reader and visibly displayed in place of the image by a
text-only browser or a graphics-capable browser with image-loading disabled.
In the absence of an ALT tag, screen-readers
will speak the path and file name for the graphic — this rarely provides any
useful information. Graphical browsers with picture loading disabled will
display an empty gray rectangle. ALT tags are limited to 256 characters.
Non-Link Graphics
Images can be a tremendous aid in the understanding of page content for visitors
with learning disabilities, cognitive impairments and those whose native
language is not that in which the page is presented. Select images carefully and
provide a clear, complete and concise description in the ALT tag.
| INCORRECT |
CORRECT |
| ALT="U of M Wordmark" |
ALT="University of Minnesota" |
| ALT="Picture of two adults." |
ALT="Picture of a college student and professor
working at a computer." |
| ALT="Picture of a lake. The lake appears to be
frozen, with small piles of snow scattered about its surface. The land and
trees in the foreground are also covered by snow." |
ALT="Picture of a lake in Winter." |
Tables and Charts
ALT tags may not be adequate for describing graphical tables and charts (e.g.,
pie charts, line and bar graphs, or tabular information presented as a graphic).
There are several methods for conveying the information represented by these
types of images:
Convey all of the information in the text
body of the document.
Use the graphic as a link to a complete text
description of the information being conveyed.
Provide a separate text link to a complete
text description of the information being conveyed. These links may be hidden by
making the text color the same as the background color on which they appear.
However, the additional information may be useful to visitors with learning
disabilities and other cognitive impairments.
Animations
Animations cannot be directly accessed by users of screen-readers, language
translation applications, some hand-held devices and browsers that do not
support animation or have the feature disabled. As with static images, an ALT
tag must be included for each animation. ALT tags may not be adequate for
animations used to convey information. There are several methods for conveying
the information:
Convey all of the information in the text
body of the document.
Use the animation as a link to a complete
text description of the information being conveyed.
Provide a separate text link to a complete
text description of the information being conveyed. These links may be hidden by
making the text color the same as the background color on which they appear.
However, the additional information may be useful to visitors with learning
disabilities and other cognitive impairments.
If the animation contains meaningful audio, a
separate, text description of the audio portion must be provided for persons who
are deaf or hard of hearing.
Links
Text Links
Links must be clear, descriptive and able to stand alone. Do not use single word
links — they do not provide an adequate description of the information to be
retrieved, nor do they provide an adequate-sized target for persons who have
difficulty controlling a pointing device.
Placing long lists of text-based links close
together in rows or columns increases the probability of mouse errors for
persons with mobility impairments. Use vertical lists of well spaced links
whenever possible. Links listed horizontally or in a multicolumn fashion must be
visually distinct and separated by vertical bars (|) or graphics with
appropriate alternative text (e.g., | or *). Avoid enclosing links in brackets,
braces, parentheses or other punctuation.
Imagemaps
An imagemap is a single picture with multiple active regions, each of which take
the user to a different page or location based on where the mouse click occured
within the image. There are two basic types of image maps: "client-side
imagemaps" and "server-side imagemaps."
Client-side imagemaps allow both mouse and
keyboard navigation. By specifying an appropriate ALT tag for each active
region, a client-side imagemap functions like a series of links for users of
adaptive technology, some hand-held devices, text-only browsers or browsers with
picture loading disabled.
In contrast, server-side imagemaps do not
allow keyboard navigation or the specifying of ALT tags for active regions.
Include redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map
in order to ensure access for visitors using adaptive technology, some hand-held
devices, text-only browsers or a browser with picture loading disabled.
Multimedia
A text and/or audio description of the visual elements of a multimedia
presentation must be available for users with visual impairments. Audio
presentations must be accompanied by text captioning in order to provide access
for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Text alternatives for a multimedia
presentation must be synchronized with the presentation. Providing captioning
does not preclude posting a transcript of the presentation that can be searched
and/or downloaded.
Remember: individuals, with or without a disability, may not have the equipment or software necessary to access multimedia presentations.