1. Web and Information Technology Accessibility: From the Basics to Institutional Policy Sheryl Burgstahler sherylb@uw.edu Lyla Crawford lylac@uw.edu Terrill Thompson tft@uw.edu

2. 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

3. Ultimate goal: To improve academic & career outcomes for all students, including those with disabilities

4. Handouts AccessComputing Accessible Web Design Available in both HTML & PDF formats

5. 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

6. 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

7. Q: Who is affected by inaccessible web content?

8. A: Everyone!

9. Ability on a continuum See Hear Walk Read print Write with pen or pencil Communicate verbally Tune out distraction etc.

10. Old School Technologies

11. Today: Technological Diversity

12. We All Have Choices

13. Tag Cloud of Ed Tech terms Video Conferencing Lecture Capture LMS Canvas Augmented Reality Mobile iPhone Camtasia Relay Tegrity iTunes U Collaborate Adobe Connect Web PDF Classroom Technologies iPad Blackboard Moodle Sakai

14. Tag Cloud of IT Accessibility Terms

15. Always Ask… Can everyone use this technology? What are some possible barriers?

16. Example: Alt Text on Images

17. Example: Dialog for Entering Alt Text

18. Example: Dropdown Menus

19. Example: Video Player

20. Example: CAPTCHA

21. Example: Adobe Connect

22. Example: Google Docs

23. In order for IT to be accessible…

24. Content must be perceivable

25. Controls must be operable

26. Content must be understandable

27. Content must be robust “SixthSense” from MIT Media Lab Fluid Interfaces Group: Using any surface as an interface

28. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Source:

29. 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

30. A Very Brief History of Accessibility Law & Standards

31. 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

32. 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)

33. 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

34. 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?

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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?

45. Policies can occur at any level Federal State Institution Department or Unit Individual

46. Who’s Responsible for Web Accessibility on Your Campus?

47. People Who Create Web Sites Add alternate text to images Use headings Add labels to forms Become familiar with WCAG 2.0

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. Policies, Procedures, Practices

53. IT Policies Galore Copyright Policies Privacy Policies Security Policies Acceptable Use Policies Policies on Policies “Do we really need another policy?”

54. 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

55. 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?

56. 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

57. Stay tuned for final P3 Results Results will be announced November 14 at Accessing Higher Ground: http://accessinghigherground.org http://accessinghigherground.org Results will be published in the Fall issue of Information Technology & Disability Journal: http://athenpro.org http://athenpro.org

58. 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?

59. 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

60. Policy Step 3: Review, Buy-in & Approval

61. Policy Step 4: Raise Awareness Support model vs. Enforcement model Be prepared to provide help, training, & resources – Empower the infrastructure – Cultivate champions – Make friends

62. 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?

63. 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

64. 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