Year 2 Web Accessibility Annual Report
California State University, Sacramento
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Section 508 of the 1973
Rehabilitation Act (as amended in 1998), the California State University Coded Memorandum
AA-2007-04 requires annual reporting of the implementation of the Accessible Technology
Initiative by all CSU campuses. This report focuses Priority One: Web Accessibility
(Administrative), due August 15, 2008.
The questions identified in this form address your original plan from 2007 and provide a
narrative description of your progress as well as obstacles in achieving your goals. Please
provide updates to your original plan, reporting on significant tasks that were completed; what
you expect to accomplish next year; areas of difficulty and barriers to completion; and any
comments on your observations and discoveries. You may provide any attachments that you
believe are relevant to this report.
D:\612937464.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Auditing and monitoring processes ................................................................................. 3
2.
Accountability and documentation procedures ............................................................... 6
3.
New websites and content ............................................................................................. 10
4.
Exceptions to accessible administrative web content ................................................... 13
5.
Critical administrative websites that require remediation ............................................ 15
6.
Training Plan .................................................................................................................. 16
7.
Communication plan ...................................................................................................... 19
8.
Evaluation process ......................................................................................................... 21
9.
Roles and responsibilities .............................................................................................. 23
10.
Milestones and timelines................................................................................................ 24
Appendix A: WEB ACCESSIBILITY DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES ................................... 26
Appendix B. Proposed curriculum skeleton for training different audiences ......................... 30
Appendix C. Long-term path to functional accessibility ......................................................... 31
D:\612937464.doc
1.
Auditing and monitoring processes: What do you have in place and what is planned to track your
prioritized redesign of websites? What criteria do you use to establish priority; who measures outcomes;
who audits?
1a. Accomplishments in
The AccMonitor solution detailed in the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan has
2007/2008
been deployed, although not all targeted pages and sites are currently configured to
be automatically monitored. Web Services is investigating the optimal interval
between scans.
The University Webmaster has created a publicly accessible website
(accmon.csus.edu) for viewing accessibility reports generated by AccMonitor
(HiSoftware). The site centralizes and exposes accessibility reports for editors and
auditors alike. However, no formal process has been established to ensure that these
are updated and that the corresponding owners/editors check them. The cross-section
of sites listed in the First Year Web Report, is available at
http://www.csus.edu/accessibility/firstyearreport/crosssection.htm
Campus websites for monitoring were prioritized through committee evaluation of the
use of campus administrative sites by students and faculty. In general, sites that were
heavily used or that represented critical services needed by students (e.g. registration,
financial aid) were given priority. The list of monitored university websites has not
expanded in the last year, but there are plans to add new sites in the coming months
based on review of student/faculty web traffic patterns.
As planned in the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan, funds have been allocated
for a web accessibility specialist, who was hired July 2008. This individual has taken
over responsibility for all auditing and monitoring, and is evaluating options for best
leveraging the AccMonitor software with the growing network of web authors and
developers. He is also considering how best to deploy the AccVerify software to a
focused and advanced user community.
The manual checklist proposed in the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan as a
means of enabling average web developers to inspect their own pages is not
complete. A draft of the checklist has been created, but it takes longer than 10
minutes to complete and must be refined.
D:\612937464.doc
1b. Plans for 2008/2009
The development and implementation of a regular schedule for inspecting (both
automatically and manually) sites is the highest priority in Part 1. While automatic
testing performed by AccMonitor is a crucial first step, the implementation of a truly
accessible website will require page and code inspection on a regular basis. This
schedule will be published, so that authors and editors are aware of when their sites
must be submitted to AccMonitor software. Restricting inspection to changed pages is
a sub-goal of this initiative, but determining and following through on a schedule of
checking is most important.
Further refinement of the AccMonitor process is still needed to fully utilize the
product. For instance, some of the sites currently monitored have log in pages that
have not been examined by AccMonitor. Developing a method for checking these
pages is a high priority, as they are often crucial for performing university business. As
part of this process, a “How to understand an AccMonitor Report” document will be
created by the web accessibility specialist to help authors and owners act on their
pages.
Another plan for 2008/2009 is to selectively deploy the AccVerify software to power
users who do many updates or are responsible for high-profile sites. These users will
require additional training and will work closely with the web accessibility specialist to
ensure conformance. It is hoped that the automatic repair features of the product will
facilitate its adoption, but these users will be required to perform manual inspections
as well (following additional training).
D:\612937464.doc
1c. Barriers to
In 2007/2008, staffing was the primary barrier to the implementation of the Web
completion
Accessibility Implementation Plan. While both the University Webmaster and other
instructional members of IT were capable of understanding, diagnosing, and training
on accessibility issues, other duties prevented them from fully enacting the proposals
set forth. The addition of the web accessibility specialist will greatly alleviate this.
Another barrier to successfully auditing and monitoring Sacramento State websites is
the need to survey and learn about the existing web ecosystem. Campus websites are
highly decentralized, with staffing provided by a large number of disparate personnel
outside the control of the central IT division. Even within single divisions, many
individuals are involved in web development, with little overall coordination in most
cases. In addition, websites for individual faculty are often prepared by faculty
members themselves, creating the need to coordinate monitoring with hundreds of
individuals on a large campus. ATI personnel are tasked with monitoring sites that
evolved with certain policies and procedures in place, and navigating the
infrastructure of server access and ownership will take some time. Additionally, if
there are shifts in how this ecosystem is structured, it could result in further barriers,
especially bureaucratic ones.
Prioritizing sites and web resources has been and will continue to be an area of
constant refinement. Detailed analytics are necessary to determine what sites are
most visited, and prioritizing those requires knowledge of how crucial those pages are
to either obtaining information or interacting with a system. As more individuals on
campus are brought into the initiative, the understanding and weighting of various
sites will undoubtably shift.
1d.
It has been useful to establish a single server as the AccMonitor server and employ it
Observations/discoveries
for all accessibility needs, rather than having several programs or assets in various
locations. Because AccMonitor has a web interface that allows any number of users to
schedule scans, AccVerify might not be widely deployed and instead only to web
developers who don’t have a hostname available for their development projects.
More work must be done to analyze usage statistics and other measures of priority to
identify the highest priority campus websites; these websites should be targeted for
conversion over the coming school year. Feedback regarding web priorities should be
communicated to senior administrators in order to provide incentive for web staff to
follow through on web accessibility.
D:\612937464.doc
2.
Accountability and documentation procedures: Who is responsible? What is documented? How is
information that is gathered used to improve the process?
2a. Accomplishments in
Sacramento State has adopted a philosophy of “community responsibility” with
2007/2008
respect to the ATI web priority. While ultimate responsibility rests with the site owner
to provide accessible or alternative forms of content, entities such as Web Services,
Human Resources, department/college IT staff, or the Office of Services for Students
with Disabilities may act as consultants to assist site owners in reaching their goals. It
is generally understood that different content for different audiences will require
different solutions, and the best approach is for all university community members to
share their expertise and insight into ensuring accessibility.
All documentation regarding the Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) web
accessibility component is available at www.csus.edu/accessibility. This serves as the
main portal for understanding and documenting accessibility issues for the public,
website owners (who are ultimately responsible for their content’s accessibility) and
for content editors. This centralization of policy, documentation, and results has
resulted in a normalization of web policies in general. It has provided a repository for
website owners who, according to the University’s current World Wide Web policy,
are the college deans, department chairs, and program center and auxiliary directors.
This group holds all responsibility for content and content accessibility on their
respective web pages and web servers.
D:\612937464.doc
2b. Plans for 2008/2009
The most pressing priority for establishing a culture of accountability is a procedure
for granting web authorship privileges to university community members. This
procedure should restrict access to web publishing accounts and/or tools until
prospective authors have completed an appropriate accessibility course (as well as
accepted and understood the terms of use). Campus-wide Web Services can
implement this protocol on the main csus.edu site and subdirectories (which consitute
a significant number of campus pages and authors) and can also provide templates for
other departments and server administrators to follow. However, as noted above, a
very large number of websites are maintained by a very large group of individual
faculty and staff members, making assignment of responsibility for web accessibility
difficult at best.
Almost as vital is the cataloging of websites under the csus.edu umbrella (those on
www.csus.edu and the entirety of subdomains). That is, there needs to be a database
that tracks who owns what sites/pages, who edits those sites/pages, and contact
information for both. This database will facilitate accountability, and is a requisite
piece of more advanced plans to automate remediation notifications (as sent out by
the web accessibility specialist).
To this end, the web accessibility specialist has initiated development of a web
application to assist him in auditing sites and apprising site owners of violations. While
this application is in the planning stages, it should allow for rapid notifications and
enable the web accessibility specialist to consult with site owners on how to best
correct accessibility violations.
A major part of the “community responsibility” approach is ensuring that there are
procedures in place to notify and monitor site owners when repairs become
necessary. The aforementioned web application or possible Sharepoint site may play a
role, but a key ingredient that is currently lacking is the instituionalization of a
procedure that identifies, remediates, and monitors websites.
To further use the ATI as an opportunity to harmonize web policies and set forth a
coherent and comprehensive web strategy for the campus, the Web Oversight
Committee (described in the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan will transform
into a campuis-wide Web Advisory Group (WAG) that reaches beyond IT and seeks
participation from the entire campus (students, faculy, staff, and administration). This
group will be co-chaired by the Vice President for Advancement and the Vice President
and CIO. The WAG would be responsible for ensuring, among other things,
accessiblity standards were met and that web authors were properly trained, initially
and on an ongoing basis. This adaptation of the Web Oversight Committee is still in a
D:\612937464.doc
draft form, but will be easy to implement, as the Committee was never properly
formed in the first place.
2c. Barriers to
In the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan, a policy was proposed that permitted
completion
the University Webmaster to remove inaccessible pages after certain notifications and
deadlines of non-compliance passed. However, the decentralized nature of web
development on campus makes such an approach ineffective. Given this hurdle, it
seems prudent to reevaluate the best way to enforce compliance and remediation of
accessibility violations. The proposed WAG would be an ideal body for developing a
solution to this issue as it would draw its membership from affected communities. As
college deans, department chairs, program center and auxiliary directors and
individual faculty are responsible for the content and content accessibility of their
respective sites, it would be prudent that all stakeholder groups be represented on
such a committee.
Other barriers include the fact that many authors and owners are non-technical, and
will require assistance understanding what their responsibilities are and how to fulfill
them. These include not only remediation skills, but documentation skills as well. Also,
it can be difficult to determine whether an issue is solved or not, or whether a certain
website exhibits accessibility issues. For this challenge, Sacramento State is
considering using the Web Accessibility Committee as pilot testing group for pages.
Using the diverse skill set on the Committee may prove to be a boon for detecting
access issues.
D:\612937464.doc
2d.
Development of a marketing and training plan for the many individuals involved in
Observations/discoveries
web development across campus is a critical future task. Documentation of
procedures is also a difficult challenges for Sacramento State, as there are so many
different authors and authorship environments. While one option would be a standard
report that authors turn in after completing their repairs, this holds little benefit for
future authors who turn to documentation for assistance. If the goal is simply to have
a historical record of changes, then a simple report makes sense. But if the goal is to
generate a recipe for repairs (by aggregating over many solutions for many
checkpoints), then another option would be preferable. At this point, such an option is
limited to brainstorming, but perhaps a document or site similar to the W3C
"Techniques for WCAG 2.0" (or 1.0) should be the goal of the documentation effort.
Note that this is not a call for adoption of the WCAG 2.0 (or 1.0) standards, only a
reference to the structure and purpose of a particular W3C document.
To encourage documentation and collaboration among web developers seeking to
repair their sites, there is a proposal to create a community SharePoint site for
developers that would function as a wiki and allow web authors to share their
problems and generate solutions. The efficacy of such a site is questionable, as it
would require web authors to actively participate, but if such a site were the locus of
required repair documentation, it could succeed.
Because accountability is in the same problem space as issue tracking, the approach
detailed above (regarding the Sharepoint site) might be worth adopting systemwide.
Indeed, a systemwide enterprise wiki + issue tracker could streamline communication
between campuses, while maintaining privacy, providing a uniform interface for
documentation and accountability, and enabling cross-campus cooperation.
D:\612937464.doc
3.
New websites and content: How does your campus encourage accessible design and authoring for new
additions to the administrative web?
3a. Accomplishments in
The University Webmaster, in consultation with Academic Technology & Creative
2007/2008
Services, Information Resources & Technology, and the Faculty and Staff Resource
Center, has held a number of training sessions on campus regarding web accessibility.
Using both in-house and third party materials, they have taught at least one 2-hour
"bootcamp" each semester. Web Services also developed an online WebCT course
that covers accessibility basics and a follow-up online exam. The primary method for
encouraging accessibilty in web pages has been training that focuses on the benefits of
universal design, but also emphasizing the official Sacramento State policy regarding
conformance to Section 508 in all web-based information.
Web Services and the University Webmaster created a "Web Central" site to serve as a
hub for all authors and developers. There, visitors can find accessible templates,
university and systemwide policies, and links about accessibility and the web. The
current templates are available for download and use at
http://www.csus.edu/web/templates.html. These templates are themselves
accessible, but are undergoing refinement as best practices for using them are still
being developed.
In the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan, it was proposed that Web Services
leverage the existing Web Access Request form at
(http://www.csus.edu/irt/acr/web/webReq.stm) to require new users to pass an
online course (such as the WebCT one mentioned above) before activating their
account. While this policy has not been implemented, the WebCT course is being
further developed and could possibly be used as a gateway to account access.
Through a central IRT system (SacLink), the university community is able to download
several web authoring tools that may facilitate accessible design. Some training
materials have been developed for these, but only for the most basic tasks. This
distribution channel is being considered for deploying AccVerify software as well,
although the target audience for that is still under consideration (see above).
D:\612937464.doc
3b. Plans for 2008/2009
Determining the best way to implement accessibility training for all authors is the
most important goal of 2008/2009. Regardless of whether or not a WAG is created,
none of the education or resources can be fully utilized until a policy is in place to
ensure their use.
While the course content for accessibility training is currently in WebCT, there are
plans to examine LearnerWeb as an alternative LMS. The primary reason for this
change would be LearnerWeb’s existing connection to HR and other university assets,
which would allow for deeper integration with existing training programs for faculty
and staff. This corresponds directly with the plan to tie web access accounts to a
successful demonstration of knowledge about web accessibility.
There are plans for an aggressive training initiative to begin in the Fall. With the
addition of the web accessibility specialist, there is hope of teaching multiple web
accessibility courses per semester, and possibly per month. These courses will focus on
best practices and evaluation, as well as emphasize the support from Web Services
and the web community.
Because there are a number of student developers on campus taking web design
courses, there is consideration of seeking guest lecture opportunities to talk about
accessibility in these courses. Sacramento State employs many students in
administrative offices, and while relatively few of them are tasked with website
maintanance, it is hoped that these students will bring accessibility issues (and
solutions) to their superiors. And of course, the additional education enhances the
profile of the ATI, teaches students marketable skills, and ultimately contributes to a
more accessible web.
A major initiative of Web Services is putting the university website into a content
management system (CMS), or similar architecture for web publishing. This process is
ongoing, but is an important part of the overall web strategy for Sacramento State.
The major requirements pertaining to accessibility are that the CMS must allow
developers to modify templates so that they are accessible, that it must produce and
encourage accessible content, and that it must provide an accessible interface for
authors.
D:\612937464.doc
3c. Barriers to
Sacramento State identified four new positions to support web development across
completion
campus; however, two current positions (including the webmaster) became vacant
during the year, with the other three positions just being filled in the past month.
Needless to say, the lack of staffing in the web area was therefore a significant
problem during 2007. Another problem being grappled with is ensuring that existing
users (i.e. those already with web access accounts) go through the online accessibility
course. It will likely be necessary to identify and contact each person doing web
development individally, inform them of the class, and check to see that they've
passed the online course or offer them an opportunity to "place out" of the class by
demonstrating proficiency and taking a quiz. Given the large number of such
developers, this will require starting with those involved in development of the most
heavily used sites.
Another issue is account access for servers around campus. While Web Services can
institute a policy for restricting access to the main csus.edu server, there is little to be
done – as a matter of policy – to ensure that authors on other (e.g. college or
departmental) servers are properly trained. This also raises questions about how these
other server environments are administrated, and it is highly likely that there will be
great diversity from server to server.
Sacramento State is also trying to encourage site authors and owners to use accessible
templates. It is hoped that planned WAG committee can assist with this effort, as the
templates being developed conform to branding standards in addition to being
accessible. However, some sites will elect to use their own designers to create pages
and templates. The challege will be to seek out these designers and convince them
that building accessible pages is not difficult, and that there are resources on campus
to assist them.
3d.
It has been strikingly difficult to find a CMS that matches the three minimum
Observations/discoveries
requirements that pertain to web accessibility (see last paragraph of 3b). Dozens of
CMS's have been examined, but very few seem to meet those needs or be
technologically feasible.
D:\612937464.doc
4.
Exceptions to accessible administrative web content (such as People Soft, your LMS or library web
applications): Have you identified exceptions, and if so, how do you document these issues and your
decision to leave them as an exception to accessibility? What are your plans for specific exceptions to
provide accommodation to achieve equally effective alternate form?
4a. Accomplishments in
The Web Services department received no requests for exceptions or exemptions
2007/2008
from the web accessibility requirements. This is a product of two factors. First, that
the entities responsible for web content have started to become stakeholders in the
ATI process who are looking at this period as a time for reevaluating the systems used,
and looking to procure new, accessible technology. This is a natural result of the
“community responsibility” philosophy, and has already proved fruitful. For example,
the new web portal (uPortal) included accessibility in its early testing, specifications,
and project plan. The second factor is that those web pages most likely to require
exceptions (such as library web apps, WebCT) have not been fully tested yet, and have
not been included in the scope of automated testing.
If a department felt that a 508 exception should apply, they must document the
exception and provide an alternative means of access. Currently, there is no board
that determines exception validity, which entails that departments are on their own in
this decision, for now.
If informal resolution is not possible an individual with a disability may submit a
complaint to the Director of Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, California State
University, Sacramento, 6000 J. Street, Sacramento Hall, Room 162, Sacramento, CA
95819-6032, tel. (916) 278-6907. If the access complaint is about technology, the
individual could use an Accessible Technology complaint form (complaints may be filed
in alternate forms):
www.calstate.edu/Accessibility/EIT_Procurement/APPENDIX.H.ComplaintFormv2.doc
]
D:\612937464.doc
4b. Plans for 2008/2009
Plans are being developed to identify pages and sites most likely to require exceptions.
If such sites are found, then the accessible alternate must be provided in a timely
fashion. The development of such a version will go through a planning process similar
to that of the EIT Exception process for procurement. The plan will ensure that if an
alternate version is created, that the content be identical in both versions.
In order to evaluate possible exemptions, an impact analysis procedure will need to be
developed by the Web Accessibility Committee. This analysis, similar to the one used
in the E&IT Exception process, will be vital in determining exemptions, and will likely
draw on qualitative and quantitative information.
Part of each exception will be to document the nature of the accessibility issue, the
preferred format for receiving the content, the address and owner of the inaccessible
content, and any contact information. When this information is collected, the High
Tech Center (training facility for disabled students) and the Office of Services for
Students with Disabilities may be consulted to help develop a plan for website owners
to deal with a plan for alternative access, starting from complaint/notification and
leading to the maintenance of up-to-day alternative accessible content. Ultimately, it
will remain the website owner’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place.
Also, within IRT there will be an effort to prioritize accessibility. The web accessibility
specialist will coordinate with the IT Project Manager to ensure that exemptions are
identified and documented early in the development or procurement process (as the
case may be). It is expected that over time, exemption documentation will converge to
a standard template.
4c. Barriers to
Because exception resolution is the responsibility of the website owner, owners of
completion
exempted content/sites will need additional training and resources to produce and
maintain accessible alternatives.
Sites that use cutting edge technology will pose a potential barrier to the exemption
plan. In these cases, research will have to be conducted on a case-by-case basis to
determine how best to address the content inaccessibility and what might constitute
alternative access. Identifying these sites will also be challenging.
D:\612937464.doc
4d.
There is discussion regarding the importance of front-end vs. back-end accessibility.
Observations/discoveries
This distinction comes into play when evaluating web applications that have a
customer-facing element (the pages seen by customers) as well as an administrative
interface (seen only by site authors and owners). While it could be argued that frontend is more important because pages are seen by more people, the back-end must not
be ignored. Unfortunately, the back-end is often the most proprietary and inflexible of
the two, and developing accessible alternatives will be difficult for interaction.
5.
Critical administrative websites that require remediation: What is your process for identifying critical
administrative websites that require review and possible redevelopment? How will you select the most
important 500 pages that need evaluation and a commitment to redevelop if needed?
5a. Accomplishments in
The ATI Steering Committee identified the 20 most critical pages in the csus.edu
2007/2008
domain using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. The committee
employed Webstats to measure which sites were receiving the most hits, but also
prioritized sites based on their knowledge of which sites were most important, both to
disabled and non-disabled visitors. For instance, the Office of Services for Students
with Disabilities was included, as visitors requiring accessible content would be likely
to visit the page.
5b. Plans for 2008/2009
This process will be refined in 2008/2009 in order to grow the diversity of Sacramento
State sites that fall within the monitoring and redevelopment program. The web
accessibility specialist, the University Webmaster, and the Office of Services for
Students with Disabilities will lead this effort with the Web Accessibility Workgroup. If
analytics show some pages that rank high on hits, but do not have child pages that
receive much traffic, such frequently visited pages may be deemed "critical" for
redevelopment. To this end, Sacramento State is considering a survey to send to
selected faculty, staff, and students that will assist them in qualitatively ranking page
importance.
Sacramento State will also try to involve as many constituents as possible in
determining which pages are reviewed and redeveloped. It is hoped that this will
accelerate adoption of accessibility standards across campus, as such involvement
engages the university community with accessibility, and reinforces a feeling of
ownership for site owners around the campus.
5c. Barriers to
Determining criticality is a nuanced and heuristic process. Obtaining agreement, let
completion
alone consensus, on which administrative pages are most critical is difficult simply
because criticality is open to interpretation. The quantitative data provided by
analytics is helpful, but not decisive.
D:\612937464.doc
5d.
Focusing on pages rather than sites or subsites seems to have drawbacks for later
Observations/discoveries
stages of the ATI. While identifying the top 20-100 pages of a campus web site and
remediating them for accessibility is an excellent pilot program, it will be interesting to
see how things move forward. Determining the most efficient way of remediating all
university web pages is a crucial issue in the coming months for all campuses. 20082009 will prove to be a decisive year in strategizing for the long-term objectives of the
ATI web priority.
6.
Training Plan: What is your plan to train administrative web developers, student assistants and content
contributors? Have you developed curriculum? Do you have regular training times? Do you require
certification and / or continuing education?
6a. Accomplishments in
As mentioned in question 3, a number of training resources and programs have been
2007/2008
established to address and encourage web accessibility. These include a 2-hr
accessibility "bootcamp" offered by Academic Technology and Creative Services as
well as a WebCT course. These bootcamps were offered once or twice per semester,
and were attended by ~10 faculty and staff per session.
Third party materials have also been purchased to supplement these sessions. Quick
reference cards from the University of Wisconsin have been used in the web
accessibility and instructional materials domains of the ATI, and Sacramento State
recently purchased "Web Accessibility Principles" from Lynda.com to supplement the
instructional material at http://calstate.edu/accessibility/tutorials/lynda.
The University Webmaster has created an online WebCT course that teaches the
basics of web accessibility, as well as an online test. These have been tested by several
users for effectiveness and ease of use, and will continue to be developed as a
possible requirement for obtaining a web access account (see question 2).
D:\612937464.doc
6b. Plans for 2008/2009
The training plan as it currently stands provides a foothold for further instructional
opportunities. The first step in elaborating this plan is to identify what audiences
(types of authors) exist in the Sacramento State community, and to determine what
information is appropriate for each. Presently, 3 major groups have been identified:
authors, designers, and managers. Consumers of accessibility education can range
from novice to technical, and educational programs should reflect that diversity. The
training program will also incorporate materials and curricula being developed
systemwide via the Chancellor’s Office’s Training Task force.
To this end, 2008/2009 will see a revamping of materials and curriculum that will
enable staff to reach out to website owners and authors with audience-appropriate
information. The goal will be to create materials for different levels of expertise in
serveral modalities, ranging from handouts to course instructor notes/presentations,
to online courses. While existing versions currently exist for all of these, more must be
developed to produce a curriculum - a defined set of steps that take various audiences
from novice to expert in the area of web accessibility. These new materials will be
tested for usability and efficacy with in-house staff (initially) and then as a pilot for
instruction. It is expected that they will be refined based on feedback from the
students and as more experience is gained with WebCT as an instructional aide. A
proposed curriculum overview is attached as Appendix B.
As mentioned in question 2, this will involve more frequent and scheduled
instructional sessions, both for the public and targeted at students taking web design
courses. Instruction will be progressive, with beginner, intermediate, and advanced
levels. The content of these courses will focus on the "whys" of accessibility, as well as
the "hows". That is, they will explain why accessibility is important and worth adopting
in the web design process, but also how to implement accessibility in practice.
The web accessibility specialist will track participants in the public instructional
courses and WebCT courses and use that information to construct a mailing list for
maintaining contact. Also collected will be the sites that participants manage or
contribute to, which will aid in building a database of web assets and their owners.
Sacramento State also relies heavily on college and library IT personnel,which are
distinct from IRT. Over the coming year, this staff will come to be a major asset for
promoting ATI and web accessibility standards. They will be trained as web designers
to assist their colleges in developing new sites, working with the web accessibility
specialist as necessary.
D:\612937464.doc
6c. Barriers to
Continuing education (CE) is an essential aspect of a long-term web accessibility
completion
strategy. However, convincing authors that new techniques are worth their time
investment is a challenge. For CE to be effective, ATI will require publicity targeted at
authors who have difficulty maintaining acessibility on their site. Identifying these
authors (and sites) - even with the monitoring and auditing tools set forth above - will
require time and directed effort.
6d.
Training courses have been generally well reviewed by attenedees, but it will be
Observations/discoveries
helpful to review the materials of other campuses.
D:\612937464.doc
7.
Communication plan: How has your communication plan proceeded this year? Have faculty, staff and
students been contacted? What approximate percentage of each group has been exposed to the campus
web accessibility requirements?
7a. Accomplishments in
In 2007/2008, ATI staff and campus ATI committees disseminated information about
2007/2008
web accessibility to faculty and staff campus-wide. The Accessible Technology
Initiative web priority policy was communicated in a letter from the President in 2007,
and again in the President's Address to the campus. Faculty Orientation included
information about teaching successfully with universal design, and introduced new
faculty to ATI resources. The Provost sent an email to all Deans and Department chairs
reiterating the university's commitment to the ATI, and encouraged faculty to seek
assistance when necessary. Multiple websites were set up to make the web
accessibility policy known and provide assistance in conforming to it
(http://www.csus.edu/web and http://www.csus.edu/accessibility).
The feedback process pertaining to web accessibility issues has been merged with the
feedback process for accessibility issues in general. The University views the provision
of reasonable accommodation and access for individuals with disabilities as a
cooperative effort, involving administrators, faculty, staff and students. Since
Sacramento State is making a shift from accommodation to access, the feedback
process also shifts. As described in the 2007 Web Accessibility Implementation plan,
complaints about web pages (accessibility, usability, broken link, or otherwise) and
should go directly to the department providing the web page. However, if a complaint
is related to provision of appropriate academic accommodations in classes, then the
Director of Services to Students with Disabilities (SSWD) or designee (if contacted)
might first seek to resolve the conflict by informal means, per the Policy on Academic
Program Access: http://www.csus.edu/umanual/acad/uma00215.htm . Such
resolution would typically require working with individual faculty members,
departmental web support staff and department administrators.
Additionally, ATI staff produced a campus newsletter that included web accessibility
tips and contact information. Similar information was included in the campus Bulletin
about the ATI program in general.
D:\612937464.doc
7b. Plans for 2008/2009
Outreach is expected to continue via various channels on-campus. ATI staff will
continue to work with the Provost's Office and Chief Information Officer to ensure that
policies are communicated to the faculty, staff, and students. This communication will
take the form of all-campus and directed email, forum presentations, and articles in
campus publications.
The ATI campus newsletter will continue to be developed and distributed on campus.
Articles in the newsletter will detail resources for faculty, staff, and students, as well as
provide "QuickTips" for novice authors. These same audiences will also be targetted at
upcoming ATI forums.
The web accessibility specialist - as part of the monitoring and training initiatives - will
begin making contact with individuals in various departments around campus to
encourage them to attend training sessions. This direct engagement with website
owners and authors promises to be an effective means for raising awareness and
facilitating adoption of accessible content creation. Additionally, he will be targetting
IRT staff more directly through the IRT newsletter. Indeed, newsletters will be an
important channel for directed communication in the coming year.
The IT staff of the colleges and library will be called upon to help spread awareness of
ATI and web accessibility best practices. The plans for using this staff resource are still
being formulated, but it is hoped that this staff will be able to act as a “first contact”
for many college website administrators. This staff also meets regularly, and will be an
important resource for shaping policies pertaining communication to administrators
and faculty.
7c. Barriers to
The most significant hurdle for communication at Sacramento State is regularizing
completion
education and outreach while not flooding the channels of communication. To this
end, ATI staff must be judicious in their usage of particular means of communication,
but still aggressively pursue alternative and less common methods of evangelizing web
accessibility to the campus. Faculty and staff especially can be inundated with email,
and it may sometimes be preferable to use paper instead.
D:\612937464.doc
7d.
A key unresolved issue is the substantial overlap between the web accessibility
Observations/discoveries
initiative and the instructional materials accessibility issue. The fact is that the majority
of faculty instructional materials today are presented on the web, often through a
learning management system. The many web materials developed by faculty do not
show up in the review of web priorities, because materials created by individual
faculty members don’t receive the same level of traffic as materials used campuswide. Nevertheless, faculty-developed materials taken as a whole represent a
significant subset of overall campus websites used by students. A way must be found
to bridge this gap between web accessibility and the accessibility of instructional
materials. This is a daunting task, given the large number of faculty and the myriad
ways in which faculty members develop web materials.
There are numerous opportunities on campus for publicity, but there is a competition
for attention among groups, clubs, and initiatives. Sacramento State has been
fortunate with the administration's championing of ATI and its web accessibility
component.
8.
Evaluation process: How is progress measured? What metrics do you use to determine if you are better
off this year than last year? How did you choose your metrics?
8a. Accomplishments in
Progress is generally measured by compliance to 508 standards. Thus, sites with few
2007/2008
pages that fail the standard are judged to be further along than sites with many pages.
It is not certain whether aggregate violating pages is a better indicator than
percentage of violating pages, but it is hoped that this will be addressed in the coming
year. The criteria used to determine progress are in active development.
D:\612937464.doc
8b. Plans for 2008/2009
The Web Accessibility Workgroup, including the ATI Project Coordinator, Vice
President of Academic Computing Resources, University Webmaster, and web
accessibility specialist will develop criteria for measuring the campus' progression
toward full 508 compliance, including benchmarks in the areas of training,
communication, monitoring, and auditing.
A primary method of improving communication and enhancing the profile of ATI on
campus is to encourage communication. To this end, a survey will be conducted by the
ATI Steering Committee in 2008/2009 to gauge the effectiveness of communication
plans. This survey will help determine which communication methods and events are
effective, and which could be further refined. Furthermore, this survey may increase
the number of contacts that ATI staff have, which will make it easier in the future to
communicate with appropriate staff.
8c. Barriers to
Identifying the dimensions on which to measure progress requires a broad knowledge
completion
of both the ATI objectives and university. Gathering the multiple perspectives and
synthesizing a rubric for evaluating progress of individual sites and the ATI in general
will take time and staff resources.
8d.
While progress reports at the end of projects can be useful, it is also helpful to track
Observations/discoveries
smaller changes on a daily or weekly basis. Although this hasn't happened yet, it is
being considered as a way to replay projects in post-mortem reviews. However, this
requires a project management application that has not been decided on.
D:\612937464.doc
9.
Roles and responsibilities: Please identify the responsible parties and their roles associated with the
above processes.
9a. Accomplishments in
The most notable addition to the ATI staff was the hiring of a web accessibility
2007/2008
specialist. This person will be repsonsible for the day-to-day implementation of web
accessibility, including developing and maintaining training programs, performing
website monitoring and auditing, advising on remediation strategies, and coordinating
with other ATI staff.
Prior to the addition of the web accessibility specialist, the University Webmaster was
responsible for performing monitoring and auditing tasks, as well as overseeing
remediation efforts. He also performed communication and training sessions with the
help of the ATI coordinator and staff from Academic Technology and Creative Services
and Web Services.
The ATI Coordinator was the lead communication director, ensuring that all university
community members were apprised of the ATI and its web accessibility component.
She met with administration members and spoke at various forums around campus to
inform the community, and also led the development of the ATI newsletter,
overseeing its distribution.
The ATI Instructional Materials Specialist, hired in May 2008, assisted with accessibility
training programs aimed at faculty by attending sessions and answering questions.
Academic Technology and Creative Services (ATCS) also assisted with training by
providing staff and resources that assisted the University Webmaster in the creation of
materials and by providing classrooms for instruction. ATCS was also instrumental in
the publicizing of information technology accessibility trainings.
9b. Plans for 2008/2009
While there are no plans to expand the ATI staff, many of the roles previously filled by
the University Webmaster and instructional staff will be vested in the web accessibility
specialist. The additional personnel will permit more collaboration and specialization,
such that team members will be able to fully address all aspects of the ATI objectives.
D:\612937464.doc
9c. Barriers to
The large number of staff members involved in supporting faculty/staff web
completion
development within departments is a significant barrier to the development of
communications, training, and support. There is no single approach that will meet the
needs of all faculty and staff and there is not enough central ATI staffing to support a
wide variety of approaches. ATI staff must be creative in the development of
collaborative approaches that leverage the many other departmental staff members
involved in supporting faculty and staff in web development.
There is also sometimes difficulty in identifying roles. For instance, there are many
people who are impacted by the need to caption video: the person creating the video,
the person presenting it, the High Tech Center, etc. However, people sometimes
become prone to “silos” where they feel that some aspect is “not their job”. The hope
is that as the philosophy of “community responsibility” gains traction, this tendency
will fade away. But it is a natural aspect of bureaucracy for people to avoid areas of
non-specialization.
9d.
Not applicable.
Observations/discoveries
10. Milestones and timelines: How do your milestones and timelines conform to the ATI Coded Memoranda?
Did you meet your milestones? If you will miss a deadline why do you think that happens? Please list
strengths and weaknesses in your planning. Both will be useful for the CSU to analyze system trends.
10a. Accomplishments in
Sacramento State has been dedicated to meeting all ATI Coded Memoranda
2007/2008
deadlines. Based on past progress and current projections, there is no anticipation
of failures to meet deadlines or reach milestones. For updated progress, see
Appendix A.
The dates in Appenidix A are taken directly from the web accessibility
implementation plan, and reflect responsibility for completion or progress over the
last year, as well as who will be responsible for 2008-2009 implementations.
10b. Plans for 2008/2009
A more robust system of milestones will be developed to guide the ATI staff toward
the goal of 100% compliance. These milestones may be tracked in an issue tracker,
such as Sharepoint.
D:\612937464.doc
10c. Barriers to completion
One of the problems for timely progress is coordination among staff. Often, events
or training materials need to be checked and rechecked by several staff in different
departments. Each deliverable that is created has to pass through a number of
hands to ensure completeness and accuracy, but occasionally the process stops.
Indeed, plotting out the course of the year in terms of goals is relatively simple, but
determining who will create, review, and revise products or curricula can be
difficult.
Another barrier is the diversity of resources on campus that pertain to disability.
While there is sufficient staff to effectively engage disability across campus, it can
sometimes be difficult to keep up to date on the efforts ongoing in each
department. What makes this a particularly difficult issue is that these departments
are loosely related in activities, but strongly related in mission. That is, while they
likely have much to inform each other, they are doing very different things, and only
occasionally need to collaborate. Thus, typical solutions like more frequent
meetings are not very helpful since departmental overlap is rare and unpredictable.
Yet infrequent meetings would not allow for the short deadlines that are often
attached to projects.
10d.
Because there are so many projects over the course of a year, Sacramento State is
Observations/discoveries
looking at a number of project management solutions. Thus far, no application has
leapt to the front of the pack.
One long range goal not described in the web accessibility implementation plan is,
following the successful conversion to full 508 compliance, to move past technical
accessibility to functional accessibility. That is, many simple pages (i.e. those that
lack forms and javascript) are relatively simple to make 508 compliant. But if the
web page author has made use of layout tables, or has not marked up navigation
menus as lists, the page can still have serious accessibility obstacles. Fixing these
will take more time and effort, but will have a positive impact on the campus web
presence. However, this will entail moving to CSS for layout, which can introduce
browser incompatibilities, and will require the WAG to make decisions about how
far back browser support will go. It is possible that someone will argue for infinite
backwards compatibility, back to Netscape 4 or IE 3. The ATI response should be
that moving to proper semantic markup and CSS greatly enhance the web
experience for disabled users, who are not in a position to “upgrade” their facilities
for viewing the site, while those using outdated technology have – in theory – that
power. For more information, see Appendix C.
D:\612937464.doc
Appendix A: WEB ACCESSIBILITY DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES
Prepared by: Melissa Repa, Interim Project Coordinator of ATI at Sacramento State, David Katten, Web Accessibility Specialist
Note: Webmaster position presently vacant, search is ongoing.
Persons
Project
Notes/Comments/Issues
TASKS
Resources
Due
Responsible
Status
May 15, 2007: Completion of the First Year Web Report. This first year project will assist campuses in conducting a self-evaluation of the
accessibility of their websites and in planning for remediation.
identify cross
section of web
sites, and
assigned staff
Evaluate cross
section "repair
sample" to identify
data for estimated
time, cost, and
difficulty
Web Accessibility
Community of
Practice meetings
Prepare first year
report with
estimated time,
cost, difficulty;
identify planning
information
UCITA (now
ATI Steering)
committee
group
ATI CO
website, Web
Community of
Practice
ATI website;
HiSoftware
AccMonitor
Web
subcommittee,
Webmaster
identified cross section list and sent to CSU CO
March
completed
Webmaster
5/15/2007
completed
Webmaster
ongoing
as
scheduled
evaluated repair sample using HiSoftware; teams
trained on HiSoftware, incl. individuals responsible for
the web pages in the "repair sample"
report can be found at
http://www.csus.edu/accessibility/firstyearreport/
Webmaster,
subcommittee
5/15/2007
completed
June 15, 2007: Submission of the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan and First Year Web Report
Identify additional
planning
information,
review current
procedures
D:\612937464.doc
Web processes
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
A process for
auditing,
monitoring and
remediation of
websites.
A process for
establishing
accountability and
documentation
procedures
A strategy to
ensure that new
websites and web
content
incorporate
accessibility in the
design and
authoring process.
process for
determining
exceptions and for
developing,
documenting and
communicating
the equally
effective alternate
form of access
that will be
provided.
A process for
identifying critical
administrative
websites that
require
remediation.
A process for
providing
alternative ways
of delivering
information during
D:\612937464.doc
HiSoftware
AccMonitor;
WebCOP
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
implementation
plan - database
TBA?
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
In progress
use templates,
consider
content
management
system
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
In progress
checklist and
best practices,
ATI at CO?
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
in progress
see first yr
report
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
in progress
ATI Training in
Dec.
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
in progress
need to further refine, based on EIT procurement
alternative access procedures, and come up with some
best practices.
any period in
which websites
are undergoing
retrofit.
A training plan for
those who
develop and
maintain websites
and who author
web content.
communication
plan to educate
the campus about
web accessibility
requirements.
The identification
of roles and
responsibilities
associated with
the above
processes.
Milestones and
timelines that
conform to the
dates listed here
An evaluation
process to
measure the
effectiveness of
the plan.
Suggestion: link to Request for User Account.
trainings from
CO, WebCT
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
need to get a web developers forum together;
see
implementation
plan;
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
see
implementation
plan;
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
see
implementation
plan;
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
see
implementation
plan;
Webmaster,
subcommittee
June-07
completed
this was part of the report;
No later than September 1, 2007: New and updated administrative websites, web applications, and web content produced by the CSU or
by third-party developers should, at a minimum, conform to baseline accessibility standards as defined in Section 508 (http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/standards.htm).
We need to
communicate the
requirement to the
campus
community
D:\612937464.doc
ATI forum,
letter from
Provost
Melissa, Dave,
IRT,
subcommittee
this letter went out; need to reiterate through additional
communications;
ongoing
ongoing
Develop and pilot
an online training
for those who
can't attend in
person;
Lynda.com has
a good training,
but not CC
Melissa, Dave,
IRT,
subcommittee
ongoing
ongoing
Webmaster developed WebCT training on web
accessibility, had several users test it; campus also
purchased Lynda.com video tutorials; CSU Chancellors
Office also purchased systemwide license (available at
http://calstate.edu/accessibility/tutorials/lynda/index.htm
from computers on CSU university networks)
Implement face to
face web
accessibility
training
FSRC
Trainings;
ATCS,
Melissa, Dave,
others
ongoing
ongoing
See www.csus.edu/training for trainings.
integrate into the
process for new
user accounts
new user web
account form update
Webmaster,
IRT
9/1/2007
not
completed
this form needs to be updated to reflect new
requirement ASAP; Need to contact other universities,
e.g. Humboldt that are piloting this process
Webmaster,
Melissa, IRT,
search
committee
ASAP
completed
Appointment effective July
Hire a web
accessibility
specialist
May 15, 2009: All administrative sites that are critical to institutional access (as established in the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan)
should, at a minimum, conform to baseline accessibility standards as defined in Section 508. If remediation or replacement of the website is
not possible or would constitute an undue burden, then a plan to provide an equally effective alternate form of access must be developed,
documented, and communicated.
Review which
sites apply
communicate to
site owners about
requirement
May 15, 2012: All websites at the CSU should fully conform to Section 508. Once again, undue burden plan requirements (as described
above) apply.
Training and
undue burden
plan needs to be
publicized.
D:\612937464.doc
Appendix B. Proposed curriculum skeleton for training different audiences
D:\612937464.doc
Appendix C. Long-term path to functional accessibility
D:\612937464.doc