Accessible media files for teaching and learning: A solid solution?

Emma Mihaly, Learning Designer, Teaching and Learning Support Services - Learning and Teaching Resources, Building K, 130 Victoria Park Road, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, 4059. e.mihaly@qut.edu.au

Abstract

The use of streaming media to deliver educational content is becoming increasingly popular amongst staff and students in terms of its flexibility and richness, and the increase in the uptake of streaming media technologies for use in teaching and learning at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is evidence of this. However, this raises questions about equity, particularly for students with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act (1992) specifies that equal access is required, where it can be ‘reasonably’ provided, for the purpose of avoiding discrimination.

Educational institutions are responsible, both legally and morally, for providing accessible teaching and learning resources for all students and for meeting student and academic expectations for increasingly rich and flexible content delivery. This presentation will describe the options that QUT has considered and will present the possible solution that QUT will soon be implementing (via its Online Learning and Teaching system) to ensure that media files are accessible for all students. It will also explore related issues such as the question of what is in fact considered a ‘reasonable’ provision in terms of accessible content, and the issue of addressing large-scale compliance using a Learning Management System.

Introduction

The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.

Tim Berners-Lee, Inventor of the Worldwide Web and Director of W3C Consortium

The use of streaming media to deliver educational content is becoming increasingly popular amongst staff and students in the higher education sector. Teachers are realising that streamed video and audio content can provide rich and engaging learning experiences for students (for example, in demonstrative exercises that provide the realism of a live demonstration). (Strom, 2002) The flexibility of streaming media can benefit staff in terms of the provision and reusability of content, and students in terms of self-paced access to that content (Young & Asensio, 2002) .

However, even though this approach to teaching and learning is suitable for many students, it also raises questions about equity, particularly for students with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act (1992) specifies that equal access is required, where it can be ‘reasonably’ provided, for the purpose of avoiding discrimination. Educational institutions are therefore responsible, both legally and morally, for providing accessible teaching and learning resources for all students. This is especially challenging where educational content may be provided in a range of formats or delivery methods in order to provide flexible access.

Addressing compliance

So what is considered to be ‘equal access’? The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission specifies that accessibility, in terms of the web, is the “Provision of alternatives to an otherwise accessible feature” (HREOC, 2005). To meet the minimum accessibility requirements as specified by W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium), every ‘non-text’ element should provide a ‘text equivalent’ (Priority 1.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). Interpretations of such vague wording may differ to some extent, but in the case of streaming video or audio, a ‘text equivalent’ would include a description of the main content or message that is being portrayed, such as the transcript of audio dialogue or a description of visual activities that are taking place.

With the move to mainstream use of streaming media for teaching and learning at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the issue of compliance is one that needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. The primary question is how can we achieve minimum accessibility standards in a cost and time-effective manner?

The Teaching and Learning Support Services (TALSS) department at QUT has provided streaming services for academic staff for a number of years now. In most cases, technical staff assist academic staff with the recording and encoding of video or audio material, and it then becomes the responsibility of the academic staff to upload the files using the Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) system.

Investigating possible solutions

So what are the possible solutions to compliance? It is too much to expect of academic staff to manually transcribe the dialogue or the content of their video and audio files. The popularity of streaming media would surely diminish if academic staff were suddenly required to manually transcribe all audio or video files (especially with live broadcasted lectures where speakers often ‘ad-lib’ as opposed to working to a script). Many would also argue that they are only targeting a small minority of students, which in a majority of cases is an accurate assumption. It is the responsibility of the University to provide a simple, cost-effective, time-efficient solution, which requires some level of automation.

TALSS has investigated some possible solutions that will have minimal impact on academic staff workloads and will keep ongoing costs and maintenance to a minimum. These include:

  Solution Pros and Cons
1. Purchase and implement automatic transcript generation software, to transcribe spoken dialogue to text ‘on the fly’.
  • High quality software exists that claims to transcribe spoken dialogue to text without the requirement for voice training, but this is an expensive solution (around $100k).
  • Even the most expensive software can only offer up to 90 per cent accuracy.
  • Cost-effective transcription software requires voice recognition training, taking hours of precious time for academic staff.
  • Transcription of dialogue in video or audio files does not describe the visual content of a file, and therefore may not address minimum accessibility requirements.
2. Hire a manual transcriber for every streamed video or audio file.
  • A relatively accurate solution in terms of transcription of dialogue.
  • Like option 1, transcription of dialogue only may not address minimum accessibility requirements.
  • At a cost of $100 per hour, this ongoing cost would quickly add up.
3. Automate a text alternative for files uploaded through the OLT system by including a mandatory text field to incorporate a summary of the main content of the file, or at the very least, contact details. This information is displayed to the student alongside the streaming media file.
  • A meaningful description of a video file can be beneficial for all students, not just those with disabilities.
  • Contact details as a minimum provision enable a point of contact where students can request an alternative format and academic staff can respond to student needs on-demand (as opposed to transcribing all video or audio material).
  • A cost-effective, automated solution that can be relatively easily integrated into the existing OLT system.
  • Minimal maintenance and ongoing cost.
  • Will require honesty and integrity of academic staff to include meaningful alternative descriptions.
  • As a contingency for those who choose not to do this, a default message will be included that will direct the student to contact the Unit Coordinator if a transcript is required for accessibility purposes.
  • Academic staff would still be required to liaise with users to provide access to alternative content or learning experiences as required within a reasonable timeframe.
  • Academics and students would also continue to use mitigation strategies in consultation with Equity Disability Services where transcriptions are provided in advance or as required on an as needs basis.

Implementing a solution

Solution 3 above seems the most viable option for QUT at the present time, and will be introduced as a new feature of the OLT system in July 2005.

Of course, even with a semi-automated system such as this, it is virtually impossible to monitor the quality of the information provided, placing reliance on the honesty and moral integrity of the academic staff involved, and the resources at their disposal. Professional development activities will also need to be introduced in order to raise staff awareness of the importance and benefits of providing accessible content and the tools available to assist with this.

The question we are now faced with is this:

Can our proposed solution be considered as ‘compliance’ to minimum accessibility standards?

This question, along with other related questions, will be considered as part of an environmental evaluation being carried out by TALSS staff throughout this year.

Feedback from interested parties and from those who are dealing with similar issues in other organisations would be welcomed and appreciated on the day of this presentation.

 

References

HREOC (2005). World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes. Accessed from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/s2_2 (May, 2005).

Strom, M. (2002). Streaming video: Overcoming barriers for teaching and learning. Proceedings of ISEC: Alberta.

Young, C. & Asensio, M. (2002). Looking through three ‘I’s: the pedagogic use of streaming video. Proceedings of Networked Learning: Sheffield.

Copyright

Emma Mihaly, © 2005. The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.