June 17, 2015
NISO Virtual Conference: The Eternal To-Do List: Making Ebooks work in Libraries
Technology Evaluation and Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities
Sue Cullen, M.S., Assistant Director, Accessible Technology Initiative, CSU Office of the Chancellor
Dawn Futrell, MA, Accessible Technology Specialist, CSU Accessible Technology Network (CSU ATN), Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI), California State University Chancellor’s Office
General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual Proper...
Technology Evaluation and Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities
1. Technology Evaluation
Meeting the Needs of People with
Disabilities
Dawn Futrell, MA, Accessible Technology Specialist, Accessible Technology
Initiative CSU Chancellor’s Office
Sue Cullen, M.S., Assistant Director, Accessible Technology Initiative, CSU Office
of the Chancellor
2. CSU Accessible Technology Initiative
2
• California State University (CSU)
• Largest public baccalaureate
degree-granting institution in the
United States
• 23 campuses; almost 450,000
students
• About 13,500 students with
disabilities registered with our
campus disability services offices
• Established Accessible Technology
Initiative (ATI) in 2006
3.
4. Overview
• CSU System wide Library Platform Accessibility
Evaluation
• Software/Website common accessibility barriers
• Simple accessibility evaluation checks
• Procurement evaluation
• Levels of evaluation
• Read and Respond VPAT - Level I
• Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan
• Accessibility Roadmap
6. CSU System wide Library Platform
Accessibility Evaluation
Expected Outcomes
• Fostering awareness and collaboration regarding
accessibility awareness with the Vendors
• Promoting product improvements and creation of
Accessibility Roadmaps
• Provide system wide training
• Share findings system wide
Completed by the members of the Accessible
Technology Network
7. Common Barriers
• Missing Alternative text description for
meaningful images
• Inaccurate or lack of captioning
• Link text that is not meaningful (informs the user
of what it is or where the link will lead)
• Missing or inappropriately coded form fields
• Lack of structure for document or web page
Titles, Headers, Lists
• Lack of color contrast
8. 3 Things to consider while choosing
technologies
Can individuals:
1. Access all necessary website or software
application functionality via the keyboard only,
such as accessing menu options and navigating
between different screens?
2. Read the text easily? If not, try using different
color combinations with a strong contrast to
make the materials more perceivable by
everyone.
3. Enlarge the screen without distorting the text?
(e.g. “Ctrl +” keystroke)
10. Evaluation Protocols for Compliance & Usability Testing
Level I (Read and
Respond)
• Review VPAT
information for
confusing unclear
remarks and
explanation which may
result in significant
barriers.
• Consider Campus or
System Wide Impact
of the product.
• If significant issues
found, consider
conduct manual
testing at Level II or III
to validate claims or
inconsistencies.
• Always share VPAT
with updated
comments with vendor
Level II (Spot Checking)
• Limited criteria
validation based on
application type
• Examples:
• Web form applications
(form fields labels,
input mask, error
handling)
• Basic web page (link &
semantic
requirements, tab
order and images)
• Concurrently: Run
Compliance Sheriff
(C.S.) Use as a guide
for manual checking.
• Recommendations and
resources provided
within the resulting
reports.
Level III (Full Check)
• Criteria validation - CSU
ATI Requirements.
• Comprehensive testing
(Applications may have
coding that requires
additional research and
reiterative testing of
coding solutions
validation.)
• Detailed
recommendations and
resources provided in
report.
• Concurrently: Run C.S.
level IV scan with manual
testing.
• As needed provide actual
coding or work around for
end users.
11. Level I – Read and Respond
Common VPAT Discrepancies
• Do any criteria that do apply to the product
have status levels and/or comments that claim
they don’t apply?
– Example: Status level is ‘Not Applicable’ and
comments state “CSS cannot be changed due to
product branding” [1194.22(d)]
– Example: A VPAT for a modern website with rich
functionality claims “No scripting languages are
used”[1194.22(l)]
12. Equally Effective Alternative Access Planning
(EEAAP)
1. Description of the issue:
What part of the system, software, or process has
known accessibility barriers Further information on
Section 508 and ATI standards can be found at CSU
Accessible Electronic and Information Technology
(EIT) Procurement
13. EEAAPS
1. Persons or groups affected:
List the person(s) or groups who may/will be affected.
Groups may be specific (e.g., IT employees, Engineering
students, etc. or general (e.g., public, visitors, students
only, CSU employees, etc.).
2. Responsible person(s):
List the name(s) and titles of the campus employee(s)
who will be responsible for providing equally effective
alternate access.
14. Equally Effective Alternative Access
Planning (EEAAP)
3. How will EEAA be provided:
Describe in detail how the responsible
department(s)/person(s) will provide equally effective
alternate. For example, providing a real time
captioning.
15. EEAAPS
4. EEAA Resources Required:
List any resources required, including training,
equipment, additional staff, etc.
5. Vendor timeline for remediation:
A timeline to plan create, implement, and follow
up on plans for the remediation of the product.
16. What can Librarians do?
• Build vendor accessibility awareness
• Drive accessibility improvements to library e-
resources through market demand
• VPAT Reviews – Steps 1- 4
17. Step 1: Gather Information
• Request a VPAT
• Search vendor website for an accessibility statement.
• Ask questions about how accessibility is integrated in to
the product development process.
• Have developers received training in accessibility?
• Is accessibility testing part of the QA process?
18. Step 2: Review Information
• Review VPAT for contact info
• Is the product information, vendor name present?
• Is contact info (name, email, phone) provided for the person/group
that completed the VPAT?
• Are all applicable sections completed?
• For most modern web applications sections 1194.21, 1194.22,
1194.31, and 1194.41
• Ask questions about how the information on the VPAT was
gathered
• Was in-house product testing done?
• Was a third party accessibility evaluation company engaged?
19. Step 3: Review Product
• Ask the vendor to demonstrate the accessibility features.
• Request an Accessibility Roadmap that lists any
accessibility barriers in the product and a timeline for
remediation.
• The Roadmap should include any VPAT entries where the
Supporting Features are described as “not supported” or “supports
with exceptions”
20. Step 3 (cont.): Review Product
• Example: VPAT Criterion(section 1194.22)
• Example: Corresponding Roadmap entry
Criteria Supporting Features
Remarks and
explanations
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text
element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt",
"longdesc", or in element content).
Supports with
exceptions
Most images contain
alternative text that
clearly describes the
purpose of image.
Issue
Description
Current
Status
(Open,
Closed, I/P)
Disposition
(Planned,
Deferred, I/P)
Remediation
Timeline
Available
Workaroun
ds
Comments
EXAMPLE:
Images on the
landing page lack
equivalent
alternate text.
Open Planned Q3, 2014
release (v1.2)
Functional
images will
receive
descriptive
alternate
text;
decorative
images will
21. Step 4: Place Order
• Include accessibility language in library e-resource
contracts. Examples include:
• ARL Model US Licenses
• Contract Language included in CSU General
Provisions
• Reminder: Be prepared to provide
accommodations if the platform has significant
accessibility barriers
• Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan (EEAAP)
22. CSU Contract Language – General Provisions
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Contractor warrants that it complies with California and federal
disabilities laws and regulations. (Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990,42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq). Contractor hereby warrants the
products or services it will provide under this Contract comply
with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and its
implementing regulations set forth at Title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1194. Contractor agrees to promptly respond to
and resolve any complaint regarding accessibility of its products or
services. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless CSU from any claims arising out of Contractor’s failure to
comply with the aforesaid requirements. Failure to comply with
these requirements shall constitute a material breach of this
Contract.
23. What we can do together
• The CSU has learned many valuable lessons while
implementing accessible information and technology
across our system.
• We are happy to share what we have learned
• We welcome opportunities to collaborate with others
• We hope that vendors of educational technology are
receiving a clear and consistent message about
accessibility from all postsecondary institutions
• We welcome your inquiries ati@calstate.edu