Real Life Access to 'Second Life" Worlds: The Potential, the Problems and the Possibilities for a Barrier-Free Future.
Web 2.0 has
evolved dramatically with internet users collaborating, creating and sharing
their experience using a variety of media platforms. With this rich variety of
online tools and platforms it provides accessibility to some users with access
to the Internet but not all. Moreover, the digital age allows opportunities for users with
disabilities to transcend the limitations of real life in virtual spaces. This
may sound positive, however it is important to note that there can be barriers
insomuch as, “further disadvantage by way of social, physical, sensory and
technological issues.” (Wood, 2009)
According to
Wood (2009), “…this study describes the potential of Web 2.0 as a narrative
space for those who are isolated in real life, outlines the current accessibility
problems imposed by Web 2.0 technologies and explores possible approaches for
addressing the identified barriers to accessibility.”
This study
was divided into three main sections related to accessibility, Web 1.0 sites,
Web 2.0 applications and 3D Virtual Worlds. It is important to mention that
there is a World Wide Web Consortium which is responsible for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG). Wood (2009) uses this as somewhat a framework to distinguish
the accessibility standard within each Web phenomenon.
The results
determined Web 1.0 as having lower than anticipated accessibility standards
within the WCAG guideline. Web 2.0 in comparison is satisfactory however with
the changing facets of technologies on the Web and user-generated platforms,
the accessibility standard must also change and meet this changing face of the
Web. Finally, 3D Virtual Worlds presents to be particularly beneficial for
users with disabilities such as the Second Life group ‘Wheelies’ that is created
as a disability friendly environment. However, barriers in forms of sensory and
cognitive impairment have yet to be accepted and continue deniability insofar
as participation within Virtual Worlds.
Furthermore this study
provides some solutions with accessibility, such as a universal design and a
need for a design for all. As Wood (2009) explains this movement needs, “increasing
awareness of the importance of equality of access to information services, the
passing of legislation in various countries making accessibility of Web sites a
legal requirement, and the establishment of The World Wide Web Consortium’s Web
Accessibility Guidelines…using an inclusive or universal design approach.” It
is not to say there is not any form of awareness or step towards this movement.
This can be evident in YouTube caption option and Google’s varied services
including audio indexing however for there to be governed protocol and format
into full accessibility is yet to be produced and implemented.
As a discussion
this study brings into light the need for a universal design for online accessibility
for all. As Web 1.0 pointed out it transmitted some limitations that were
evident in real life. Moving towards Web 2.0 the issue for full accessibility
became aware and legislation and guidelines were implemented to support this
notion. Furthermore, at present 3D Virtual Worlds have evolved dramatically and
technologically which can prove to be limiting in itself for full accessibility
however, as mentioned in this study this idea can be improved. This can be a challenge
for the future however awaiting the future developments this study can provide
some important insight into harnessing user-generated communities to empower this
notion for full accessibility and create or recreate worlds that support this
notion.
Reference
Wood, D.
(2009). Real life access to “second life” worlds: The potential, the problems
and the possibilities for a barrier-free future. The International Journal of
Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations. University of South
Australia. (8). 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment