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?