IDRC - Celebrating 25 Years

1993 - 2018

Continuing Our Work During COVID-19

Read the letter regarding COVID-19 by IDRC Director, Jutta Treviranus.

Supports for complying with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

How do I make my web site accessible? How do I make my office documents accessible? How do I make information available in alternative formats? Businesses and organizations read our AODA Help.

RT @CoLabCoOp: What better way to spend your Thursday than with @Benetech @idrc_ocadu and us? Exploring how to shift power in tech through…
reply • retweet • favorite
FluidProject RT @colinbdclark: Join us at the PPIG 2020 workshop hosted by @idrc_ocadu in Toronto to explore the margins of programming. Who has agency…
reply • retweet • favorite

Courseware Evaluation 1999 - Summary

Methodology:

Within this study, consideration has been given to both designer controlled utilities and inherent courseware framework features. The WAI guidelines have been used to develop critieria and a weighting system for scoring.

  • Designer Controlled Utilities have been evaluated for accessibility in terms of: Access Support and Information.
  • Inherent Courseware Features have been assessed in terms of: Access Support only.
  • Courseware Components which are critical to the accessibility of the product have been analysed separately.

Scoring:

  1. Accessibility: The sum of the scores for the Access Support, Information, and Courseware Components is reported as a raw Total Accessibility Score.
  2. Functionality: When a feature is supported in a product, its accessibility is analysed, and an addition is made to the functionality score for the product.
  3. Access Support Functionality Ratio: Because all programs or packages being assessed do not possess the same features, the integrated accessibility score has been related to functionality. The Access Support Functionality Ratio relates accessibility to the overall complexity of the product.

Results:

Web Course in a Box
Accessibility: 154
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .818
Strengths

  • high Access Support Functionality ratio
  • moderate functionality
  • includes text links

    • Weaknesses
  • missing ALT text on icons
  • help file support is weak
  • no information provided on accessibility

Top Class
Accessibility: 172
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .661
Strengths

  • includes ALT text
  • ability to turn frames off
  • moderate functionality

    • Weaknesses
  • help file support is weak
  • no information provided on accessibility


Lotus Learning Space
Accessibility: 238
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .604
Strengths

  • highly functional
  • some attention to accessibility


Weaknesses

  • no ALT text for default images/icons
  • partially framed navigation system
  • no information provided on accessibility in help files

Courseware Evaluation 1999 - Summary

Web Knowledge Forum
Accessibility: 117
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .558
Strengths

  • uses text links
  • high functionality


Weaknesses

  • uses tables to format layout of text
  • long lists of links
  • no information provided on accessibility in help files
  • no ALT text (though images not critical)

Virtual-U
Accessibility: 115
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .556
Strengths

  • ALT text provided on home page
  • some text links provided for navigation


Weaknesses

  • uses frames for all views
  • uses tables for complex home page layout
  • complex drop-down menus for viewing course components
  • no information provided on accessibility in help files

CourseInfo
Accessibility: 107
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .349
Strengths

  • highly functional


Weaknesses

  • no ALT text provided
  • no alternative text links
  • extensive use of frames
  • uses tables to format a columnar layout of text
  • no information provided on accessibility in help files

WebCT
Accessibility: 67
Access Support Functionality Ratio: .257
Strengths

  • highly functional in terms of creating a broad range of student tools
  • "work arounds" are possible to improve accessibility


Weaknesses

  • no ALT text for images/icons
  • framed navigation system
  • framed bulletin board system
  • java-based tools
  • no information provided on accessibility in help files