2. Accessible Technology Initiative Brent Whiting Director, Academic Computing Temple University Accessible Technology Initiative Title slide

3. About Temple University Based in Philadelphia, one of three Pennsylvania state-related research Universities (University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University) 37,000 students & 5,700 employees 17 schools and colleges including 8 professional schools (including Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy and Podiatry) 140 bachelor’s degree programs 126 master’s degree programs International campuses: Tokyo, Rome, and London Programs in China, Korea, Greece, Israel and more 1,400 students registered with the Office of Disability Resources and Services (DRS)

4. Why Now? Greater reliance on technology in education. – Course management systems (Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas.) – Smart classrooms with advanced audio visual technology. – On-line administrative processes. – Dramatic increase in on-line learning. – Growing adoption of electronic textbooks and eReaders in classrooms. – Proliferation of iPad’s. – Growing use of Google Apps and other online software platforms. As technology gets more integrated and complex, compliance is becoming critical. Proliferation of lawsuits.

5. Getting Startyed Where are we starting from?

6. Self Audit Hired outside consultant to review: – Websites & Web applications (sample size=15) – Classrooms / Learning Spaces – Computer Labs Results: We were on par with other institutions that hadn’t addressed accessibility

7. Our Discovery Areas to address from audit: – Overall accessibility policy for information and technology – Computer labs (128 computer labs & 3,648 workstations) – Instructional materials – Learning spaces/classrooms (~700 including labs/studios) – Library – Procurement of technology – Web based content – Web based systems

8. Other institutions: Insight & experience Joined ATHEN & EDUCAUSE’s “ITACCESS” listservs Attend conferences to learn from other institutions Conference call with Cal State about how they launched their initiative Spoke with San Francisco State about their procurement process

9. Vision & Strategy Vision, Strategy, & Delivery

10. Vision: Defined in the University policy We will be accessible The individual responsible for providing the technology or information is responsible for making it accessible If it can’t be made accessible we should consider removing it Established the Accessible Technology Compliance Committee (ATCC) which is empowered to effectuate change and is responsible for: – Setting standards & guidelines – Setting Timetables – Enforcement – Granting exceptions Accessibility of Information and Technology Policy: Established November, 2012

11. Accessible Tech Compliance Committee Chair (CIO) 1 Staff (Director) 4 Faculty representatives 1 School / College technical (Director of Information Technology) 3 Computer Services (Assistant Vice President, Executive Directors) 1 Strategic Marketing and Communications (Director) 1 Disability Resources and Services (Associate Vice President) 1 Human Resources (Associate Vice President) 1 Provost Office (Vice Provost) 1 Library (Senior Associate University Librarian) 1 University Counsel (Associate University Counsel) 1 Facilities (Director of Architectural Services)

12. Initiative Structure - Working groups

13. Accessibility Liaisons An individual within each school, college, or campus that is responsible for coordinating the accessibility remediation and compliance efforts for their respective area: – Establishes priorities of remediation – Evaluates accessibility during the procurement process – Works with budget unit head for funding accessibility initiatives – Attends accessibility meetings and training – Provides annual reports on the individual school or, colleges, progress towards remediation

14. Scope of Work Initial assessment – Hire a consultant Instructional materials – Tools for DIYers – Farming out remediation Learning spaces & Computer Labs – Software – Hardware – Remediation of physical spaces Library and it’s components – Online catalog – Journals – Alt Format for Course reserves Multimedia – Captioning/Transcripts – Audio Descriptions/Transcripts – Captioning of live & live streaming of events Web – Web auditing solution – web based systems (replace/fix?) – Tools for testing – Accessibility Q&A staff as part of the software development lifecycle

15. Working groups: standards & guidelines Web group – Developed standards for web content WCAG 2.0 AA for internally developed/sponsored sites Section 508 for vendor controlled content Established deadlines for compliance – Issued an RFP for a web auditing tool Assistive Technology group – Developed standards for Computer labs – Developed standards for Classrooms (evolved into Learning Spaces) Instructional Materials group* – Started working on standards (abandoned in favor of how-tos) – Developing checklists *Need to get faculty involved in Instructional Materials workgroup

16. Learning space standards Worked with Disability Resources & Services to develop standards Standards address: – ADAAG specifications (i.e. reach distances & kick space for podiums) – Software – Hardware (including control panels for lights & AV equipment) – Smart carts Types of spaces – Auditorium/Theater space – Classrooms – Lecture hall – Seminar room – Studio space Developed a checklist based on the standards

17. Computer lab standards Standards address: – ADAAG specifications Reach distances (counter/workstation heights, peripherals) Route to workstation Kick space for workstations # of accessible workstations Signs & documentation – Assistive Hardware (e.g. keyboards, trackballs, etc.) – Assistive Software – Pay to Print stations – Training student workers – Deadline for compliance Developed a checklist based on the standards

18. Library Investigating workflows to make scanned text and video course reserves accessible. Conducting an year-long review of all 500 database platforms and alerting vendors to compliance issues. Remediating their website. Library programmers working with vendors to make products accessible: – Ensemble video player. – Contributed to Omeka (open source software for online exhibition; very popular among digital humanists and cultural institutions.) Joining HathiTrust in large part to benefit print-disabled individuals so they can have full-text access to the 11 million books, journals, etc.

19. Instructional Materials Surveyed file types on Learning Management System (Blackboard) Prioritized creation of checklists for the top four types of content first: WordPowerPoint ExcelPDF Incorporating Universal Design aspects in checklists

20. Purchasing Added language to purchasing policies requiring procurement (purchase or otherwise) of accessible information and technology Added language to RFP and contracts for accessibility & remediation Developed an Exceptions Request form and process workflow Worked with purchasing department to flag all software requests

21. Exception Request workflow Initial Request ATCC Review Accessibility Liaison (or individual if there is no Accessibility Liaison) submits request to accessibility@temple.edu Proof to make sure everything’s OK (may request clarification on some items or revision to request if it is incomplete) Write up an executive summary of the request Request form and executive summary sent to ATCC for review and decision (decision is requested within 6 business days) ATCC may request clarification on some items Decision is sent to Accessibility Liaison (or initial requestor)

22. Exceptions Request form Name & description of the product or resource Who is the audience? (And indicate approximately how many of each type) What is the cost? (single year and/or recurring) Accessibility Roadmap? (and if so what's the timeline for compliance?) Describe how it is used. Is it currently in use? Which of the 508 category(ies) is relevant to the product? Is it required for coursework or job function? What exception category (specified in section 508) are you requesting? Explain why it meets the exception. Describe the reasonable accommodation you will provide.

23. Communicate & Empower others

24. Launching the initiative Communicate for buy in: – CIO went on a “road show” presenting to: Council of Deans Faculty Senate Business Managers Collegial assemblies – Presentation consisted of: Overview of policy & project Who is responsible (content creator is responsible) We’re here to help & what we’ve done so far

25. Launched Website Website launched to act as a clearinghouse for: – Policies – Guidelines – How-to materials – Quick tips – Link to community http://accessibility.temple.edu

26. Empowerment – Schools/Colleges Deans appoint “Accessibility Liaisons” in each school or college Purchased a tool to allow users to audit their own web content/sites/systems Distributed guidelines for computer labs and smart classrooms Bi-weekly meetings with Accessibility Liaison committee Training “road shows” presenting the initiative and a demonstration on making instructional materials accessible

27. Make it easy in the beginning

28. Quick wins Survey and remediate Computer Services’ centrally owned/managed learning spaces & computer labs first: – Largest and most heavily used labs were remediated first – Received feedback on the standards and checklists to improve and clarify requirements – Early remediation allowed us to determine average remediation costs Update all control panels in smart classrooms owned by Computer Services so they ‘talk’ Launched new web accessibility standards at university wide web designers meeting Creative Services works with contractors to make sure new websites are accessible Hired a visually impaired student worker to assist with testing software

29. Stay with it

30. Things take time Instructional materials guidelines – 2 years and it’s still ongoing – Reboot after the first 5 months – Switched from policy to checklists with How-To’s – Engaging larger group of faculty to assist with determining how to tweak them for better adoption Web auditing software and remediation – Had problems with end users logging into to the server – Worked with vendor for patches

31. Annual Report Survey completed by all Accessibility Liaisons Understand how each school/college is progressing annually. Addresses: – Web sites – Instructional materials – Learning spaces – Computer labs

32. Summaries

33. Budget – how much was spent? Central funding covered an initial $500,000 for: – Remediating computer labs (central and schools/colleges) – Remediating learning spaces – Software to audit websites – Consulting and training Individual Schools/Colleges and Administrative Units have spent $85,000+ to date for: – Remediating computer labs – Captioning Note: figures do not include personnel costs

34. Lessons learned Sometimes it takes a while to get a workable solution Deadlines are good, but be flexible Communication is key (particularly top down) Spread out the work (form working groups) People want to help, make it easy for them Don’t come with all the answers, let people be a part of the process Include representatives from facilities Be flexible (i.e. exceptions request form)

35. Questions?