Learn how MSU is taking priority-based approaches to procurement, planning, and web accessibility policy implementation across the institution. http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2017/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/323

1. Priority-Based Approaches to Accessible
Procurement, Planning, and Implementation at
Michigan State University
Nate Evans – Manager, MSU IT and MSU Hub
Kristine Moore – Assistant General Counsel, Office of
General Counsel MSU

2. Agenda
• Evolution of Michigan State University’s accessibility
program (Kristine)
• Michigan State University’s Accessibility Policies and
Processes (Nate)
• Michigan State University’s Look Forward (Nate &
Kristine)
• Observations/Challenges (Nate & Kristine)

3. EVOLUTION OF MSU’S
ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM

4. How did we get here?

5. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

6. Lessons Learned
• Don’t wait for the perfect guidance. There is
no such thing as the perfect guidance.
• ADA is a balancing act, requiring creativity in
solutions.

7. • Equal access in terms of communication =
communication with persons with disabilities must be AS
EFFECTIVE as communications with others
28 CFR 35.160(a); 28 CFR 36.303; 34 CFR 104.4
• Factors to determine what “as effective” is:
• Timeliness of delivery
• Accuracy of the translation
• Provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the
significance of the message and the abilities of the
individual with the disability.
ADA, Rehabilitation Act: Equal access
with respect to communication

10. Evolution of the law
• Title III cases:
• 2006, Target
• Court affirms web is a “place of public accommodation”
• 2012, Netflix: court split develops
• 2015, Scribd
• 2017, Seaworld
• “The internet is a unique medium – known to its users as
‘cyberspace’ – located in no particular geographical location, but
available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the
internet.”

11. Title III
• More than 250 lawsuits filed in 2016 about
inaccessible websites and/or mobile apps
• Hundreds if not thousands of demand letters

12. Title II
Over last several years, numerous cases in higher education:
• Arizona State - Kindle (2010)
• Penn State (2011)
• Louisiana Tech (2013)
• Youngstown State (2014)
• University of Cincinnati (2014)
• University of Montana (2014)
Subregulatory guidance:
• 2010 & 2011 Department of Education, Dear Colleague Letters, e-
Readers

13. DOJ Regulations
• Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making
(ANPRM) in 2010
• Supplemental ANPRM again in 2016
• Timeframe: ????

14. Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making
(SANPRM) (longest acronym in the world!)
• The scope is limited to web content – does not go as far as DOE
• Proposes standard = WCAG 2.0AA
• Shortage of consultants?
• Small businesses: different standards?
• Proposes exemptions for:
• Third party content linked to on a website
• Third party posts on a website
• Archived material on a website
• Higher Ed: Material password protected in a learning
management system
• Mobile apps
• Undue burden / fundamental alteration
• How should compliance be measured?

15. Roadmap:
Departments of Justice and Education Settlement /
Resolution Agreements
• Require an Accessibility Policy that sets and enforces a
technical standard such as WCAG 2.0
• Require annual training of employees
• Require audit of compliance with policy
• Designate an EIT Coordinator
• Create a purchasing process

16. NOT JUST PRIORITY-BASED

17. WHY PRIORITY-BASED?

19. “Where do you start?”
• Web Accessibility
• Course accessibility
• Content accessibility
• Captions
• Software and services
• Accessible purchasing

20. MSU’s ACCESSIBILITY POLICY &
PROCESS

21. MSU Policy
• Web Accessibility Policy
• Policy requires that all University Web Pages (used to
conduct core university business or academic
activities) be accessible, per the technical guidelines at
webaccess.msu.edu
• Current technical guidelines: WCAG 2.0 AA

22. Proactive Measures to Ensure
Compliance with Policy
• Executive alignment and support for digital
accessibility
• EIT Coordinator
• ADA/504 Coordinator
• Education / training
• EIT Accessibility Implementation Project (2015-2016).
*Two priority-based approaches emerged:
1. Purchasing Process – EIT as well as web
2. Audit Mechanism with local autonomy

23. Priority-based approach:
EIT Accessibility Purchasing Process

24. Assess the Priority
Highest:
• Large audience / user base consisting of students.
• Required for course work.
• High degree of educational opportunities/benefits
through technology.
• There is no easily identifiable alternative that provides
an equally effective, equally integrated
program/service in an equally integrated manner to
individuals with disabilities.
• There is a commercially available accessible
alternative.

25. Priority-based approach:
EIT Accessibility Purchasing Process

26. Priority-based approach:
Auditing with local autonomy

27. Priority-based approach:
Auditing with local autonomy
• Web Accessibility Policy Liaisons group
• 42 MAUs
• Five-year accessibility plans
• Annual self-reviews

28. Web accessibility policy liaisons
group

29. Five-year Accessibility Compliance
Plans
Five year plans are designed to show the process and
progress of EIT accessibility in MAUs across campus and
are to be vetted, evaluated, and approved by MSU's EIT
Accessibility Review Committee (ARC).
• Statement on Accessibility
• Training methods and process
• New Content
• Existing Content
• Purchasing
• Strategic Plan by year
• Resource allocation
• Future needs

30. Training
New Content
Existing Content
Purchasing
Resource allocation

31. MSU’S ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM:
LOOKING FORWARD

32. Michigan State University’s Look Forward
How does the state of the law impact our Priority-Based approach and response?
• Volatile Enforcement Climate:
o New administration in Washington: DOE and DOJ on this issue: unknown
o EO “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost” signed 1/30/17
o Plaintiff’s bar and advocacy groups always strong, likely will grow stronger
o DOE and DOJ do not provide much time for compliance
• Support in law for priority-based approach:
o SANPRM contains priority-based elements
o DOE and DOJ settlements show priority-based solutions
o Analogy to ADA and physical barriers: the law does not require an all or nothing
approach
• Technology moves so quickly; law tends to lag behind. Issues, however, will not
wait for the law to catch up.
• Our mission and values may require more than current state of law.

33. OBSERVATIONS AND
CHALLENGES

34. Observations: Implementation of a
Proactive Strategy
• Alignment of ADA Coordinator, Legal, IT, Purchasing
• Executive buy-in
o Project leaders: IT and ADA Coordinator
o IT - Pushing for funding for these positions. Funding for
evaluations.
o Legal - Guiding policies through appropriate avenues. Ensure
stakeholders know legal developments and what they mean.
o Good ADA Coordination
o Purchasing is an excellent partner
• Accessible Procurement Process - accessible contract
language

35. Challenges: Implementation of a Proactive
Strategy
• Buy-in: “What is a screen reader?” “Can’t we just accommodate as
we always have, on a case-by-case basis?”
• Training
• Forging partnerships
• Resources
• EIT coordinator (finding the right fit, someone who is qualified)
• Getting people to think beyond the web. But no ideal set of standards.
• Higher education, unique:
a. Getting faculty to pay attention. Faculty are unique.
b. Decentralized. So many employees posting content on the Web.

36. Successes!
✓Require an Accessibility Policy that sets and enforces a
technical standard such as WCAG 2.0AA
✓Require audit of compliance with policy
✓Designate an EIT Coordinator
✓Create a purchasing process
✓Consider other technologies beyond web

37. Lessons Learned:
• Don’t wait for the perfect guidance. There is no such thing.
• ADA is a balancing act, requiring creativity in solutions.
• The law, although slow to develop, does provide a road
map.
• A priority-based solution is the best solution given the
challenges inherent in accessibility compliance

38. Thank you!
Resources from Presentation:
webaccess.msu.edu