Web and Information Technology Accessibility: From the Basics to Institutional Policy

Sheryl Burgstahlersherylb@uw.edu

Lyla Crawfordlylac@uw.edu

Terrill Thompsontft@uw.edu

• 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

UW Accessible Technology Services

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

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

Action

Q: Who is affected by inaccessible web

content?

A: Everyone!

Ability on a continuum

SeeHearWalk

Read printWrite with pen or pencilCommunicate verballyTune out distraction

etc.

Old School Technologies

Today: Technological Diversity

We All Have Choices

Tag Cloud of Ed Tech terms

Video Conferencing

Lecture Capture LMS

Canvas

Augmented Reality

Mobile

iPhone

Camtasia Relay

Tegrity

iTunes UCollaborate

Adobe Connect

Web

PDF

Classroom Technologies

iPad

Blackboard

Moodle

Sakai

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

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Source:

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?

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

Action

Responses will be posted to: http://staff.washington.edu/tft

UW Information Technology Accessibility www.uw.edu/accessibility

From DO-IT @ www.uw.edu/doit:

– The Center on UD in Education – AccessWeb, AccessDL

– AccessComputing

Online Resources