Download Web and Information Technology Accessibility: From the

Web and Information
Technology Accessibility:
From the Basics to
Institutional Policy
Sheryl Burgstahler
[email protected]
Terrill Thompson
[email protected]
Lyla Crawford
[email protected]
UW Accessible Technology Services
• UW Access Technology Center, including the
website UW Information Technology
Accessibility
• DO-IT Center (Disabilities, Opportunities,
Internetworking & Technology)
– The Center on UD in Education
– AccessWeb
– AccessWeb, AccessDL & other projects
Ultimate goal:
To improve academic & career
outcomes for all students,
including those with disabilities
Handouts
• AccessComputing
• Accessible Web Design
Available in both HTML
& PDF formats
Today’s Agenda
• Introductions
• 9:30 - Basic web/IT accessibility
• 10:30 - Break
• 10:45 – Video
• 11:00 – Laws, standards, and policies
• 11:30 - Group activity on policies
• Noon - Groups report out, sharing, Q&A,
discussion, and Resources
Action
On your post-its, write:
1. One specific action you can take now
to promote technology accessibility on
your campus
2. Something you do over the next year
to promote technology accessibility on
your campus
Q: Who is affected by
inaccessible web
content?
A: Everyone!
Ability on a continuum
See
Hear
Walk
Read print
Write with pen or pencil
Communicate verbally
Tune out distraction
etc.
Old School Technologies
Today: Technological Diversity
We All Have Choices
Adobe Connect
Augmented Reality
Blackboard
Tag Cloud of Ed Tech terms
Canvas
Camtasia Relay Classroom Technologies
iPad
Collaborate
Lecture Capture LMS
Sakai
Tegrity
iPhone iTunes U
Mobile Moodle
Video Conferencing
PDF
Web
Tag Cloud of IT Accessibility Terms
Always Ask…
• Can everyone use this technology?
• What are some possible barriers?
Example: Alt Text on Images
Example: Dialog for Entering Alt Text
Example: Dropdown Menus
Example: Video Player
Example: CAPTCHA
Example: Adobe Connect
Example: Google Docs
In order for IT to be accessible…
Content must be perceivable
Controls must be operable
Content must be understandable
Content must be robust
“SixthSense” from MIT Media Lab Fluid Interfaces Group:
Using any surface as an interface
Source:
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
• HTML, CSS, XML, SMIL, MathML
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
– 1.0 became a “standard” in 1999
– 2.0 became a “standard” in 2008
• Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA)
– Provides markup that makes it possible to make
complex interactive web applications accessible
A Very Brief History of
Accessibility Law & Standards
Accessibility in Civil Rights Law
• 1973 – Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act –
programs and services of recipients of federal
$ must be accessible
• 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act
– Prohibits disability discrimination
– Title I – Employment
– Title II – Public Entities
– Title III – Public Accommodations
Section 508
• 1998 – Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act –
requires federal agencies to develop, procure,
& use accessible IT
• 2001 – Section 508 IT accessibility standards
developed (based in part on W3C Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0,
Priority 1 checkpoints)
WCAG 2.0: Three Levels of Conformance
• Level A (26 success criteria). Examples:
– Alt text on images
– Structural markup (e.g., headings)
– Captions on video, transcripts on audio
• Level AA (13 success criteria). Examples:
– High foreground/background contrast for text
– Visible indication of keyboard focus
– Audio descriptions on video
• Level AAA (23 success criteria). Examples:
– Specific text formatting requirements
– “Understandable” language
– Sign language on video
Proposed New ADA Rules
• July 2010 - U.S. Department of Justice
proposed new rules that clarify ADA
requirements related to web accessibility
• Jan 2011 – Public comment period ended
• RFC included 19 questions, such as:
– Question 1. Should the Department adopt the
WCAG 2.0’s ‘‘Level AA Success Criteria’’ as its
standard for Web site accessibility for entities
covered by titles II and III of the ADA?
Updates to Sec 508 Standards
• March 2012 –End of public comment period
for second draft of updated standards
• Draft harmonized with WCAG 2.0 Level AA
National Federation
of the Blind (NFB)
• June 2009 – Sued Arizona State University (and filed OCR
and DOJ complaints against 5 others) over use of Amazon
Kindle (settled in Jan 2010)
• November 2010 – Filed OCR complaint against Penn
State University
• March 2011 – Filed DOJ complaint against Northwestern
and NYU over use of Google Apps
• June 2011 – Sued Florida State University over use of
eGrade (& other issues)
• May 2012 – Sued Maricopa Community College District
over inaccessible “college and third-party Web sites and
software applications used for coursework and student
services”, and inaccessible clickers used in classroom
NFB vs Penn State
•
•
•
•
Inaccessible library website
Inaccessible departmental websites
Inaccessible LMS (Angel)
Classroom technologies that are inaccessible
to blind faculty members
• Inaccessible financial services via contract
with PNC Bank
Quote #1
“The disparity between the quality of education
offered non-disabled students and disabled
students is, as a general matter, increasing,
simply because the amount of inaccessible
technology on the campus is proliferating… It
sounds like a bad problem for the students. But
it’s actually a worse one for the colleges and
universities, because this is going to have to
change.”
Dan Goldstein, NFB Legal Counsel, at EDUCAUSE, October 20, 2011
Quote
#2
“Each year that a school delays identifying
where its accessibility issues are and developing
a plan of action, and each year that a university
doesn’t change its procurement policy and
continues to acquire new inaccessible
technology means that when you do finally
decide to do something, it will cost you a great
deal more… My goal frankly is to get it to the
top of your to-do list, or as near to the top as I
can get it.”
Dan Goldstein, NFB Legal Counsel, at EDUCAUSE, October 20, 2011
Quote #3
• “In terms of what to do… ending denial is the
first step and saying ‘You know, we’re
inaccessible’; and then taking stock of where
you are inaccessible; and then coming up
with an action plan… It’s important that the
plan be public, with deadlines.”
Dan Goldstein, NFB Legal Counsel, at EDUCAUSE, October 20, 2011
Quote #4
“The one thing you can go back and tell the
general counsel is: Dan Goldstein said he’s not
going to file any suit if a school has a
comprehensive action plan up that says how
they’re going to become accessible.”
Dan Goldstein, NFB Legal Counsel, at EDUCAUSE, October 20, 2011
The Problem
• We (higher education institutions) must
provide programs and services that are
accessible
• We rely increasingly on technology to
deliver our programs and services
• Inaccessible technologies create barriers for
our students, faculty, and staff; and place
us at risk
The Solutions
• Develop an accessibility plan
– Comprehensive assessment
– Identify strategies for solving the problems
– Include timelines, budgets and responsible parties
• Demand accessibility
– Ask vendors specific questions about their accessibility
– Include accessibility requirements in RFPs & contracts
– Only by demanding accessibility do we create a market
for it
Questions to Always
Ask When Procuring Product
• Is it accessible?
• Can users perform all functions without a
mouse?
• Has it been tested using assistive technologies
such as screen readers?
• Is accessibility documentation available (e.g.,
Voluntary Product Accessibility Template)?
• If an authoring tool, how does one create
accessible content with it?
Policies can occur at any level
•
•
•
•
•
Federal
State
Institution
Department or Unit
Individual
Who’s Responsible for Web
Accessibility on Your Campus?
People Who Create Web Sites
•
•
•
•
Add alternate text to images
Use headings
Add labels to forms
Become familiar with WCAG 2.0
People Who Create and/or Distribute
Electronic Documents
•
•
•
•
Add alternate text to images
Use headings
Add labels to forms
Become familiar with document
accessibility issues and techniques
– PDF
– Word
– PowerPoint
People Who Create Rich Interactive
Web Applications
• Learn and apply WCAG 2.0
• Learn and apply ARIA
• Choose and use widgets, plug-ins,
modules and themes that are accessible
People Who Produce and/or Distribute
Audio or Video
• Develop a workflow for making media
accessible
– Captions
– Audio description
• Choose accessible media players
• Explore ways to maximize the benefit of
accessible media
– Captions make video searchable
– Captions make video translatable
– Transcripts can be interactive
People Who Procure Web Tools
• Ask vendors specific questions about
accessibility
• Demand accessibility
– We’re liable and at risk if your product
discriminates against any of our students
– Only by demanding accessibility do we create a
market for it
Policies, Procedures, Practices
IT Policies Galore
•
•
•
•
•
•
Copyright Policies
Privacy Policies
Security Policies
Acceptable Use Policies
Policies on Policies
“Do we really need another policy?”
Reasons to Have a Policy
• To provide guidance to faculty and staff
• To support our requirements that vendors
provide accessible products
• To demonstrate our commitment
• To reduce legal risk
P3 Research Project
• What is the current state of accessibility of
higher education websites in the U.S.?
• How many institutions have web or IT policies?
• Is there a positive correlation between policy
and an accessible website?
• Are there other factors contributing to
institutions having an accessible website?
DRAFT P3 Preliminary Results
• 3641 Higher education institutions in the U.S.
• Google search for “web accessibility” at each
institution: Results range from 0 to 36,500 hits
(mean=132). Similar results for “technology
accessibility” (mean=111).
• 9.3% of institutions have some sort of web or
technology accessibility policy
• 30.5% of Doctorate institutions and 17.9% of
Masters Institutions have some sort of policy
Stay tuned for final P3 Results
• Results will be announced November 14 at
Accessing Higher Ground:
http://accessinghigherground.org
• Results will be published in the Fall issue of
Information Technology & Disability Journal:
http://athenpro.org
Policy Step 1: Prepare
• What problem are you trying to solve?
• How does your institution define policy?
– Policies, rules, guidelines, procedures
– Compliance vs aspirational policies
• Which type of policy is best for solving the
problem you’ve identified?
• What are the costs? The benefits?
• Who are the key stakeholders?
Policy Step 2: First Draft
• Who will write the draft?
– Written by the content expert (You)?
– Written by a policy expert (General Counsel)?
– Written by committee?
• Consult existing policies
– Other IT policies at your institution
– Policies at other institutions
http:uw.edu/accessibility/highedpolicies.html
Policy Step 3:
Review, Buy-in & Approval
Policy Step 4: Raise Awareness
• Support model vs. Enforcement model
• Be prepared to provide help, training, &
resources
– Empower the infrastructure
– Cultivate champions
– Make friends
Policy Analysis Questions
1. Who issued this policy?
2. What technology is covered?
3. How is “accessible” measured? What is the standard?
4. Is there a timeline?
5. What is the requirement for legacy web pages?
6. Who is responsible for what?
7. Who is responsible for covering the cost?
8. Where does one go for technical support?
9. Are there repercussions for non-compliance?
10. Is there a formal process for receiving an exemption?
Action
On your post-its, write:
1. One specific action you can take now
to promote technology accessibility on
your campus
2. Something you do over the next year
to promote technology accessibility on
your campus
Responses will be posted to: http://staff.washington.edu/tft
Online Resources
UW Information Technology Accessibility
www.uw.edu/accessibility
From DO-IT @ www.uw.edu/doit:
– The Center on UD in Education
– AccessWeb, AccessDL
– AccessComputing