1 6/15/09 2008 cic it accessibility & usability survey cic it accessibility and usability group...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
16/15/09
2008 CIC IT Accessibility & Usability Survey
CIC IT Accessibility and Usability GroupAnnual ConferenceIndiana UniversityJune 15, 2009
26/15/09
Authors and Topics
Mary Beth Allen University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Online Library Services
Alice Anderson University of Wisconsin-Madison
Policies and Governance
Patty Bradley-Diehl University of Michigan Online Library Services
Mike Elledge Michigan State University (ed.)
Disability Services
Jon Gunderson, Ph. D. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Educational Technologies
Margaret Londergan Indiana University Alternate Media and Captioning
Ken Petri Ohio State University Website Accessibility, Design Evaluation and Training
Mary Stores Indiana University Alternate Media and Captioning
36/15/09
Schools
Eight of 12: Indiana University Michigan State University Ohio State University Penn State University University of Illinois Campaign-Urbana University of Illinois Chicago University of Michigan University of Wisconsin--Madison
46/15/09
Purpose
Provide benchmark for future surveys Collect data on common areas of concern Identify opportunities for further collaboration
56/15/09
Method
Members discussed areas for focus at monthly meetings Reflected subgroups established at June 08 conference
Survey questions developed by area of interest Subject area champions emerged and took charge
Survey tool (Survey Gizmo) provided by Ohio State Based on previous analysis Tweaked to enhance accessibility
Data filled out online CIC representatives notified appropriate people on campus Champions oversaw process
Data analyzed and narrative written Report compiled and edited by CIC IT Chairperson Forwarded to CIC CIOs for June 09 meeting
Alternate Media
76/15/09
Alternate MediaRespondents Indiana University
Manager, Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers Michigan State University
Adaptive Technology Specialist The Ohio State University
Auxiliary Services Administrator University of Illinois-Champaign Urbana
Coordinator University of Illinois – Chicago
Disability Resource Center University of Michigan
Coordinator for Students with Visual Impairments, Blind and Chronic Health Conditions
University of Wisconsin at Madison Adaptive Technology Specialist
86/15/09
Alternate MediaMajor Findings I
All provide document conversion services All provide .txt files 6 schools provide Braille documents 6 schools provide Kurzweil or Wynn document format for
learning impaired 6 schools convert print to PDF or convert inaccessible
PDFs to accessible formats 5 schools produce math, caption videos and create
tactile graphics
96/15/09
Alternate MediaMajor Findings II 4 schools convert 20 to 50 thousand pages annually 3 schools covert over 50,00 pages annually 5 schools use full-time FTE 4 schools have two FTE 1 school has 1 FTE 2 schools have part-time staff only All schools use part-timers as well as full-time staff Some form of quality control is practiced by all Publishers are more responsive but most material needs
post production processing for accessibility
106/15/09
Alternate MediaTrends and Implications
Most universities use high-speed scanning for document conversion
Publishers respond more promptly to requests for alternate media but content still has to be converted in most cases
Much attention is being paid to rapid changes in electronic texts…copyright laws/Kindle, creation of etext library collections, Hathi Trust, Google book search
Much work needs to be done to establish captioning practices
Convergence of accessible etext formats (Daisy)
Disability Services
126/15/09
Disability ServicesRespondents
Campus disability services offices Michigan State University, Director, RCPD Ohio State University, Director, ODS University of Illinois at Chicago, Assistive Technology Specialist,
DRC University of Michigan, Admin Assistant/Business Mgr, SSD University of Wisconsin—Madison, Director, MDRC
Adaptive technology centers Indiana University, Manager, ATAC
136/15/09
Disability ServicesMajor Findings I
Percentage of students reporting disabilities lower than total U.S. undergraduates (2.5% vs. 6%) CIC range: 1.2% (UIC) to 5.5% (Indiana)
Types of disabilities tend to Cognitive, Emotional issues Learning Disabilities: 57.4% (CIC) vs. 45.7% (US) Mental/Emotional: 19.1% vs. 7.8% Mobility: 8.6% vs. 13.9% Blindness/Low Vision: 4.5% vs. 4.4% Deafness: 4.1% vs. 5.6%
Varies significantly by campus
146/15/09
Disability ServicesMajor Findings II
% of All Students Cognitive
Psycho- logical
Physio-logical
Indiana University 5.5% 58.3% 14.4% 27.3%
OSU 2.3% 67.5% 19.4% 13.1%
U Michigan 2.1% 56.3% 24.8% 18.9%
Michigan State University
2.0% 58.8% 20.2% 21.0%
U Wisconsin Madison 1.8% 48.5% 23.4% 28.1%
U Illinois Chicago 1.2% 31.6% 17.2% 51.2%
156/15/09
Disability ServicesMajor Findings III Types of accommodations
Test accommodation: 50% (CIC) vs. 88% (U.S.) Counseling or tutoring: 25% vs. 77% Note-taking: 3% vs. 69% ASL: .2% vs. 45% Adaptive technology: 16% vs. 58%
Note: CIC statistics based on students receiving accommodations; NCES statistics show percent of schools providing accommodations. All CIC schools provided these services at some point last year.CIC statistics vary by definition of services and reporting department.
166/15/09
Disability ServicesMajor Findings IV
Coun-seling
Test Accom-
modations
Note-taking/
Scribes/ ASL
Conversion
Adaptive Technolo-gy Support
Michigan State University
60.0% 15.0% 7.6% 6.1% 11.2%
OSU 39.5% 50.7% 2.7% 6.6% .5%
Indiana University 13.6% 36.0% 2.8% 5.6% 41.0%
U Michigan 2.3% 93.5% 2.8% 1.2% .1%
U Illinois Chicago 1.0% 56.9% 18.0% 10.4% 13.6%
U Wisconsin Madison
0.0% 43.6% 48.2% 8.1% 0.0%
176/15/09
Disability ServicesSummary of Major Findings
Exponential Growth in number of students identifying with cognitive issues
Approximately 2.5% of students across all reporting institutions have disabilities
Largest number of students report learning disorders Most common services are testing accommodations,
academic counseling, adaptive technology support, conversion of print and other media to accessible format, and onsite services like note-taking, ASL, proctoring, reading/recording
186/15/09
Disability ServicesTrends and Implications
Number of students with disabilities—especially learning disorders--attending universities will continue to increase
All universities provide a broad range of services though the delivery methods and types of services differ greatly
As number of students with disabilities increases, pressure on existing budgets will continue to grow
Educational Technologies
206/15/09
Educational TechnologiesResponses
Institution Response
Michigan State University Vendor claimsInternal testing
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vendor claimsInternal testingUser groups
The Ohio State University Internal Testing
University of Illinois at Chicago
Internal Testing
Illinois of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
User groupsInternal Testing
Indiana University Internal Testing
University of Michigan User groupsInternal Testing
216/15/09
LMS Accessibility Requirements
Institution
Response
MSU Section 508 and WCAG 1.0
UW Section 508
OSU Section 508
UIC Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act
UIUC Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act
IU No requirements
UM Best effort adherence to University guidelines
226/15/09
Responsibility for Ascertaining LMS AccessibilityInstitutio
nCampus Unit Role
MSU UAC Upon Request
UW Distributed
OSU WAC Consultant
UIC UIC ICL, ACCC Decision maker on purchase of LMS
UIUC DRES & CITES EdTech
Evaluation and testing
IU UIT Services Ad Hoc Testing
UM None
236/15/09
Influence of Accessibility and in LMS Purchasing and Use
Institution
Response
OSU Very important
UIC Very important
UIUC Important
MSU Somewhat Important
UW Somewhat Important
IU Somewhat Important
UM Not a factor
246/15/09
Accessibility in Training on Creating Accessible Course ContentInstitution Response
UIUC All Instructor Training
MSU All Instructor Training
OSU Most Instructor Training
UIC Instructor's Choice
IU Instructor’s Choice
UM Instructor’s Choice
UW No information
256/15/09
Responsibility for Faculty and Instructor Training in AccessibilityInstitution Campus Unit Responsibilities
MSU LCCTP General Workshops include accessibility
UW Distributed
OSU No information
UIC ACCC Specific Accessibility Training
UIUC DRES & CITES EdTech
IU Multiple Units
UM None
266/15/09
Accessibility Policies and Instructional ContentInstitution
Response
MSU 2009 Syllabi recommended, other materials later
UW Same As Website
OSU No Policy
UIC No Policy
UIUC No Policy
IU No Policy
UM No Policy
276/15/09
Responsibility for Ensuring Instructional Content Accessibility
Institution Campus Unit Responsibilities
MSU RCPD RCPD and Instructors
UW Distributed
OSU No Information
UIC No Information
UIUC DRES & CITES EdTech
IU UITS Disability Services
UM None
286/15/09
Additional CommentsInstitution Comment
MSU No comments
UW We survey students with disabilities about access barriers for all technology and learning resources ... and follow up to remedy problems ... because our campus has multiple colleges and schools, with no centralized resources or governing body ... the response of 'distributed' reflects that solutions may or may not exist ...
OSU Responsibility for training instructors about accessibility is distributed across various staff who provide faculty training.
UIC Providing resources for instructors on accessibility is a high priority this year.
UIUC No comments
IU I and others I consulted found it difficult to rank order the item in the previous question. To us they all seemed equally important.
UM Decentralized nature of University of Michigan makes mandating accessibility requirements very difficult. We typically use a best-effort approach to adhere to acknowledged best practices and guidelines, but these are not treated as policy requirements.
Library Services
306/15/09
Library ServicesRespondents Indiana University Bloomington
Library Associate Dean for Public Services) Michigan State University
Systems Librarian Ohio State University
Program Director, Web Accessibility Center, on behalf of OSU Reference Libraries Liaison The Pennsylvania State University
Coordinator of Library Services for Persons with Disabilities University of Wisconsin-Madison
Director-General Library System University of Illinois-Chicago
Assistant University Librarian for Information Technology University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
Library Web Technologies & Content Coordinator University of Michigan
Library Interface & User Testing Specialist
316/15/09
Library ServicesMajor Findings
Electronic Reserves The survey sought to gauge whether electronic reserves had
been evaluated for accessibility and whether they met campus accessibility guidelines.
The majority of libraries either had not evaluated their e-reserve systems for accessibility, or had evaluated them and were aware that their e-reserves did not meet accessibility guidelines.
326/15/09
Library ServicesMajor Findings II
Online Resources for Learning Support The survey sought to determine whether various online services
had been evaluated for accessibility and whether they met campus guidelines for accessibility.
Half the libraries surveyed had evaluated library learning support resources for accessibility, but only one library reported that it met all university accessibility requirements; the other half said these resources had not been evaluated or that their campus did not have accessibility requirements for these resources.
336/15/09
Library ServicesMajor Findings III
Online Catalog Six of the eight libraries reported that their online catalogs had
been evaluated for accessibility and met some accessibility guidelines.
However, two libraries said their campuses did not have such guidelines.
Online Databases More than half the libraries reported that some databases had
been evaluated. One library reported that most of the databases evaluated did
not meet any of the university accessibility requirements.
346/15/09
Library ServicesMajor Findings IV
Defined Accommodation Plans/Procedures All eight libraries reported that they provide assistance to people
with disabilities in a number of important ways: Help perform searches, retrieve material, provide accessible
versions of print and other material, offer some adjustable workstations with assistive technologies.
Only one library reported that it provides assistive technologies on most library public workstations.
356/15/09
Library ServicesTrends and Implications
All types of accommodation might not be offered through the library, but such accommodations are provided elsewhere on campus (disability services unit).
Libraries and universities are currently in the process of evaluating and improving the accessibility of what is offered electronically. Academic libraries are keenly aware of the need for continued assessment of use patterns and use of services.
Everyone can benefit if more evaluation is done, more standards and guidelines are developed, and if vendors and developers are held to stricter standards.
Policy and Governance
376/15/09
Policy and GovernanceRespondentsADA Compliance Office or Officer
Campus Committees Addressing Web Accessibility Issues
Web Policy
Director of Administrative Legal Services (no additional staff)
Technology Accessibility Program, Division of Information Technology Department, and the Campus Accessibility Usability Committee
Yes
Office for Inclusion & Intercultural Initiatives, 7 employees
Web Accessibility Working Group - Policy Implementation Resource Team & Policy Communication Awareness Team
Yes
ADA Coordinator Office, Office of Academic Affairs, 2.5 FTE professionals, 40 hours of Graduate Assistantship
There are a number of advisory committees but units responsible for Web pages and enterprise purchases are responsible to address the accessibility of their pages.
Yes
Office of Institutional Equity, Compliance Officer (only staff)
Council for Disability Concerns No
Director of Disability Services Web Accessibility and Standards Review Committee Yes
Students: Disability Resource Center; Faculty, Staff and other issues: The Office for Access and Equity
Campus Web Accessibility Committee, Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities
No
Office of Affirmative Action (6 persons work in the office).
Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers No
386/15/09
Policy and GovernanceMajor Findings I
Over 70% do have a formal Web or software policy covering the following areas: Design and development of Websites at the university (100%), Design and development of Websites by outside vendors for the
university (100%), Evaluation of Websites designed and developed at the university
(50%), Design and development of software at the university (25%), Design and development of software by outside vendors for the
university (25%), Purchase of software from outside vendors (25%), Enforcement mechanism (which may or may not be utilized).
396/15/09
Policy and GovernanceMajor Findings II
2006-7 ADA issues addressed Physical environment accommodations (100%) University policy issues (100%) Web Accessibility (100%) Other (public events, campus transportation & employment, ADA
Website). Issues that are anticipated for the next two years are: Reviewing ADA position and reporting structure, Implementing a Policy on Web Accessibility, Updating Web accessibility policy AD54 to address new media, Increasing awareness and compliance with the Illinois Information
Technology Accessibility Act Reviewing ADA policy to comply with recent ADA amendments.
406/15/09
Policy and GovernanceMajor Findings III
Issues anticipated for the next two years Reviewing ADA position and reporting structure, Implementing a Policy on Web Accessibility, Updating Web accessibility policy AD54 to address new media, Increasing awareness and compliance with the Illinois
Information Technology Accessibility Act Reviewing ADA policy to comply with recent ADA amendments.
416/15/09
Policy and GovernanceTrends and Implications
While CIC campuses have ADA officers and policies requiring Web sites be accessible to people with disabilities, it is not clear Whether the ADA positions or the policies are the motivating
force behind creating accessible Web sites or If the presence of either has increased the quantity of accessible
sites.
Website Accessibility
436/15/09
Website AccessibilityRespondents Michigan State University
Assistant Director, Usability and Accessibility Center Penn State
Information Technology Manager University of Illinois at Chicago
Assistive Technology Specialist, Disability Resource Center The Ohio State University
Program Director, Web Accessibility Center University of Michigan
ADA Coordinator, Institutional Equity, and Web Administrator, School of Public Health University of Wisconsin at Madison
Technology Accessibility Program Director, Division of Information Technology Indiana University
Manager, Adaptive Technology Center, University Information Technology Services University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Campus Accessibility Liaison, Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services.
446/15/09
Website AccessibilityMajor Findings I Most (80% or more) web design is done in-house, with only one
campus reporting significant outsourcing. Most web design is not centralized (65%), with most being done ad-
hoc, dependent on unit/department resources. By Jan. 2009, 6 of 8 responding campuses have a web accessibility
policy, all but UIUC based on 508 or WCAG 1.0 or combination. UIUC on IITAA
Only one policy covers desktop software. All cover HTML. Half cover Flash and PDF. 67% cover captioning.
More than 60% have no coordinated monitoring of web accessibility compliance. Those that do either spidering audits or choose to audit based on traffic.
456/15/09
Website AccessibilityMajor Findings II Most coordinated effort on application accessibility has focused on
LMS’s, with webmail and library databases close behind. Tools used: FAE and Lift Machine for spidering checking. Little
centralized support of browser-based tools. One campus does some outsourced checking.
Only one campus ensures accessibility training in all mainstream web training, but all teach some number of courses or workshops.
Little training on Flash or Silverlight. Almost all HTML and PDF. Only half focus on accessible content for courses (unknown what percentage targets instructors)
Only one campus has more than 3 FTE’s dedicated to accessibility. A third of campuses have no FTE’s able to spend more than 50% of time on access.
466/15/09
Website AccessibilityTrends and Implications
Broad concern for web accessibility across campuses and good adoption of policies
Training wide spread but questions did not probe deeply enough to determine audience
Most campuses do not have adequate resources for coordinated monitoring of web space for accessibility
Little dedicated staffing, especially given the size of responding campuses
476/15/09
Survey Results Overview
CIC institutions broadening accessibility efforts Enlarging student-specific needs to generalized accessibility A complement to, not a replacement for, present approach
Schools at different stages, but increasingly congruent Recommendations > policy Should do > must do
CIC institutions face similar challenges Third-party software and systems accessibility Websites vs. course materials, html vs. multimedia Bigger demands on limited budgets
486/15/09
Survey Conclusions
Collaboration and specialization key Decision-making by consensus at monthly meetings
Topics, timeline, methodology Discussion between meetings via eMail
People focused on areas where they had an interest But sharing knowledge and experience
Cross-category reviewing for clarity and content
CIC Program Manager, CIO feedback and advice Report content Protocol Next steps
496/15/09
Next StepsPurchasing Proposal
Proposal submitted to develop purchasing criteria Appended to survey cover letter sent to CIOs Objective: To encourage vendors to create more accessible
products by leveraging size of CIC IT schools Proposed a working group made up of technical, purchasing and
CIC IT A/U campus representatives Develop category-specific (email, calendar, database, etc.)
accessibility requirements for use in purchasing or leasing products
506/15/09
Next StepsQuestionnaire Revisions Add new questions about key CIC IT A/U issues (as needed) Align “Accessibility Design” and “Policy and Governance” surveys
Understand how web accessibility policy impacts overall campus web accessibility when combined with training, monitoring and evaluation
Measure complaints on campus for web accessibility issues Determine if complaints are about web pages, web-based courseware,
multi-media or applications Develop best practices to be used as reference to CIC developers
Use the Functional Accessibility Evaluator, WAVE, and manual evaluation to gather baseline data for each CIC home page
Identify which policies, training and staffing are in place on campuses Standardize data reporting for types of disabilities and services
provided.
516/15/09
Questions?