1. CARAT/ IT Partnership Web Accessibility Initiative Mike Elledge Software Accessibility/Usability Specialist 12/10/03

2. Overview April 2003 Web Design Survey CARAT/ IT Partnership Initiatives

3. Survey Purpose Determine UM web designer Awareness, knowledge and use of accessibility techniques Needs Inform CARAT IT Partnership project Benchmark software and web accessibility Prioritize support tools and activities Fielded April 2003

4. Participants Identified by titles, email groups 140 accessed; 90+ completed; 66 identified Broad-based: no department > 15% Varied amount of knowledge Very knowledgeable 14%, Somewhat 59%, Not Very 27%

5. Titles Programmers (30%) Webmasters (15%) Directors (12%) Graphic designers (8%) Info arch (8%)

6. Responsibilities Multiple Roles Info arch, content, graphic design, etc. Two-thirds: 4 or more roles One-quarter: 6+ Multiple Responsibilities Most create, maintain and renovate Most (71%) worked on 3+ sites

7. Tags Many tags used 95% use at least one accessibility tag Three-quarters use 5+ Half use 7+ Strongest correlation: Programmers/ consultants from SI or Media Union

8. Tags Many types used Alt (87%) Headings (79%) Style sheets (76%) Web safe colors (55%) Percentage tables (55%) Table headers (48%) Relative fonts (44%)

9. Attitudes “Strongly/Somewhat Agree” Accessibility is important: 100% I am aware of accessibility: 96% I am knowledgeable: 73% “Accessibility is a UM priority” 54% agree 46% disagree

10. Attitudes

11. Needs “Extremely/Very Helpful” Guidelines: 79% Website: 77% Workshops: 73% Diagnostic Software: 72% Reports: 63%

12. Needs

13. Verification One-third (37%) verify with tool Bobby (68%) Eleven percent use adaptive tech Lynx (60%) IBM HPR (40%) JAWS (30%)

14. Differences Between Groups “Very” vs. “Not” Knowledgeable Knowledgeable More responsibilities More experience Want resources Not Knowledgeable Less direct responsibility Less familiarity with techniques and verification Want more resources

15. Differences Between Groups Activity Very KnowledgeableNot Knowledgeable Web Masters 31% 8% Program Coordinators0% 19% Four-plus Activities92%58% Five-plus Sites69%31% Seven-plus Tags69%17% Verify with Tools69%4% Verify with Tech31%0%

16. Differences Between Groups Perception Very KnowledgeableNot Knowledgeable Accessibility is Important100% Aware of Accessibility100%84% Knowledgeable100% 0% Priority in My Department77% 32% Priority of UM61%72% Don't Have Time17% 43%

17. Differences Between Groups Need Very Knowledgeable Somewhat Knowledgeable Guidelines 77% 81% Website61% 85% Diagnostic Software53%76% Workshops53%78% Periodic Analyses46%61%

18. Conclusions Support for accessibility is strong Use of tags prevalent Desire to learn more Different knowledge = different approach Leverage “Very” knowledge Expand “Somewhat” knowledge Increase “Not” awareness

19. Actions Contacted “Very Knowledgeable” Solicited experiences and anticipated needs Providing resources for “Somewhats” Workshops on creating accessible sites and renovating existing sites Web site with info on tags, techniques, issues

20. Future Actions Introduce accessibility to “Nots” Future workshop on “Why is accessibility important?” Address “Somewhat” Needs Website Completion Workshops “How to Evaluate and Retrofit Existing Sites” Address “Very Knowledgeable” Needs Workshops “Making Flash Accessible” Guidelines

21. IT Partnership Activities to date Website Workshops Support Outreach Analysis

22. Website Accessibility and Website Design 90 percent completed Work in progress Information, examples, resources, tutorial Example http://ltg- projects.ummu.umich.edu/~melledge/ accessibilitysite/

23. Workshops Current Enriching Scholarship (May 2003), Investing in Abilities Week (October 2003) “Designing Accessible Websites” “Creating Accessible Course Materials”

24. Designing Accessible Websites 1. Rationale for Accessibility 2. Needs of Persons with Disabilities 3. Video of Computer Use by Persons with Disabilities 4. Tutorial: Hands-on Training 5. Evaluation 6. Resources

25. Creating Accessible Materials 1. Rationale for Accessibility 2. Needs of Persons with Disabilities 3. Video of Computer Use by Persons with Disabilities 4. Tutorial: Hands-on Training a) Word b) PDF c) Powerpoint d) Captioning 5. Resources

26. Workshops Current Guest Lecturer “Introduction to Accessibility” @ SI “Designing Accessible Websites” @ WCC

27. Workshops Future Enriching Scholarship (May 2004) “Retrofitting Websites for Accessibility” “Making FLASH Accessible” Guest Workshops Prelim discussions for MSU, EMU “Designing Accessible Websites” “Creating Accessible Course Materials”

28. Support Ad Hoc During workshops After workshops Scholarly Publishing Office (publishing) CRLT (formatting) UM Spinal Cord Project (renovation)

29. Outreach Participation on CfDC Invest in Abilities Week workshops Presentation of survey results Participation in UMInDS Planned and organized kick-off event Member of Steering Committee Establishing relationship with Center for Independent Living

30. Website Analysis Identify Sites UM Spinal Cord Injury Site Libraries Review Pages Bobby 5.0: Section 508, WCAG Guidelines Adaptive Tech: JAWS Resolve Issues Recommend Revisions

31. Identify Site UM Spinal Cord Injury Site

32. Review Pages 1. Bobby 5.0 Section 508 (also check WCAG 1.0)

33. Review Pages

34. Page title Tab order Navigation skips Access keys Page headings Link descriptions Image descriptions Working form controls Adequate form labels Table summaries Table captions Table coordinates 2. JAWS Screen Reader

35. Review Pages 3. Visual Checks  Multiple search mechanisms  Use of specialty code  Javascript alternatives

36. Resolve Issues

37. Make Recommendations Section 508 compliance Add alt tags Enhanced accessibility Add skip links Add/revise link titles Add Abbreviation tags

38. Results Library Sites Media Union, Rackham, SILS, Taubman, Dental Consistent Findings Minor, but significant, code violations Accessibility improvements warranted Dental exception: passes test Next Steps Recommend enhancements Review additional sites Meet with web masters Develop action plans

39. Electronic Reserves Taubman, University Reserves, SSD Findings Hard documents scanned as images, stored locally Electronic documents linked to source Students needing text files can ask SSD for them Challenges Text versions remove images, graphs No control over source files when linking Books need to be ordered, dismembered, scanned

40. Electronic Reserves Next Steps Review with tools, adaptive tech Meet with other libraries

41. Analysis Winter/Spring Projects University websites CHEF Accessibility Google Search Engine

42. Questions? Comments?

43. Respondent Attitudes

44. Respondent Needs