NAAUG site presentation McGill University, June 4 - 5, 2001 The frameless web OPAC at McGill 1. Introduction Originally, the frameless version was intended as a means of providing access to the catalogue for visually disabled users who could not get past the frames and javascript due to inadequate text-to-speech software. It soon became apparent that a larger group of people would welcome similar access to the catalogue, but for quite different reasons. 2. The frameless catalogue The file set for the frameless catalogue was much smaller than the standard catalogue since the advanced searching and user-enpowerment features weren't developed for the frameless version. Here is a quick account of what the frameless version consists of. 1. Set of files sent by ExLibris basic searching browse keyword (basic only) no options, no account, no basket, no history, no saving, no emailing (thus, far fewer files overall) 2. Header and footer are standard ExL type includes 3. Fully editable files as in standard OPAC 5. Holdings appear in same window, but some error messages still pop-up The McGill frameless OPAC http://aleph.mcgill.ca:4535/F/-/file/start-1 [ Brandeis University has also made available a frameless version of their catalogue. http://alice.mainlib.brandeis.edu:4505/F/-/file/start-1 ] 3. Arguments for a frameless catalogue After implementation, three distinct interest groups emerged and began lobbying for alternative access to the catalogue. These are portraits of the groups, the reasoning involved, the essential desire expressed by the group, and suggested best solutions for each. A. ADA compliant catalogue access Group: Visually disabled users, Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) Reasoning: The catalogue was inaccessible to the text-to-speech browsers at McGill. The existing software provided by the Office of Students with Disabilities was unable to process complex web pages with multiple frames and javascript. The intention was to provide a frameless catalogue for the benefit of the text-to-speech browsers that couldn't cope with frames, pop-up boxes, and javascript. Since that time, however, new software has been tested which can cope with such web pages. The software tested was JAWS for Windows 3.7. At the ICAU meeting last year in Berlin Windows Bridge was also tested and performed well. Essential Desire: To be able to consult the catalogue, by any means necessary. Best Solution: Better text-to-speech software. [Why? Because the catalogue is only a fraction of the information available on the Internet, and while we have a certain amount of control over the catalogue we have no control over the rest of the Internet. Better text-to-speech software would provide access to the catalogue and the web beyond.] B. Backwards compatibility Group: People with older computers and older versions of the two main browsers. [N.B. A subset of the previous group belongs here. Professional grade and up to date text-to-speech software is prohibitively expensive for individuals.] Reasoning: Older browsers fail to read the catalogue properly, and not everybody can, or wants to, upgrade. Even though minimum requirements were posted and represented a modest level of computer software and hardware, there was a vocal contingent of the University population that complained bitterly about the catalogue not functioning properly on their machines (Netscape 2 running on a 386, old Apples, etc..). Essential desire: To access the catalogue without having to upgrade or adapt to technological change. Best solution: A simple backwards compatible catalogue that would be accessible by older browsers and perform predictably on older computers. C. Cross-browser and cross-platform access Group: People with current machines/browsers who resent javascript as a security risk, sophisticated users who bemoan the demise of telnet and the command line, and assorted individuals who have aesthetic, architectural, design, functional, and performance objections to the standard version of the catalogue. In short, power users and computer geeks. [N.B. The previous group overlaps somewhat with this one. But whereas the previous group resists change out of fear, or habit, this group resents being forced to use a certain software on a certain platform.] Reasoning: The catalogue works best on recent versions of Netscape and Internet Explorer. The catalogue should work on any browser, on any platform. Essential desire: To access the catalogue my way. Don't give me what I don't want, only give me what I need. Best solution: A streamlined, command line only version with server side processing instead of javascript. The original, slightly muddled, idea was that a "frameless version", which was necessary to provide access via text-to-speech browsers, would also satisfy all the other two groups's demands. However, the term "frameless" was a careless and inarticulate way of expressing what was needed to respond to objections that each of these groups had with the standard catalogue. By articulating each group's demand more clearly and making finer distinctions, a better, more precise formulation of a panacean alternative catalogue must include not only the characteristic "frameless", but a set of other characteristics such as text-only, javascript-free, and other assorted requirements. There are important questions that need to be asked in light of the distinctions made here. Are the demands these three groups equally weighted? Is it enough to ensure that current versions of text-to-speech readers can access the catalogue? And what if the software required for this is beyond the means of individuals? Is the demand for backward compatibility as justifiable as the requirement for ADA compliance? For how long should obsolete and ageing technology be taken into account when providing access to the catalogue? To what extent must we ensure access to the catalogue on different platforms given that the majority of users have the necessary system requirements? 3. Enhancement Group Request During the past year the OPAC enhancement request group has been formulating a list of desired enhancements for Aleph. Included was a request to develop a text-based, non-javascript, frameless, ADA compatible, version of the OPAC. Ex Libris replied that it was not possible to develop this request as stated. Moreover, 14.2 was Bobby approved and ADA compliant. The OPAC group responded by saying: a) Ex Libris should clarify whether or not the out-of-the-box screens meet all priority 1 criteria of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. If not, then our enhancement request is for them to modify all out-of-the-box screens to meet these criteria. For reference on these priority 1 criteria, see: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ - priorities. This is a much more specific statement then "approved as ADA compliant by the "Bobby" test. b) It is our sense that while Aleph may be Bobby compliant there are still problems related to the reliance on frames and javascript that have a detrimental effect on the accessibility of Aleph across a wide range of browsers, platforms, and screen readers. A text-based, frameless, javascript-free version of the catalogue would ensure the widest possible access by the greatest number of users. 4. Conclusion While it is clear that ADA compliance and access to the catalogue through text-to-speech software, or other means, is imperative, it is less clear to what extent an institution is responsible for meeting the demands of those who require backwards, cross-browser, and cross-platform compatiblity.