Accessible Technology Initiative
Brent Whiting
Director, Academic Computing
About Temple University
• Based in Philadelphia, one of three Pennsylvania state-related research Universities
(University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University)
• 37,000 students & 5,700 employees
• 17 schools and colleges including 8 professional schools
(including Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy and Podiatry)
• 140 bachelor’s degree programs
• 126 master’s degree programs
• International campuses: Tokyo, Rome, and London
Programs in China, Korea, Greece,
Israel and more
• 1,400 students registered with the Office of
Disability Resources and Services (DRS)
Why Now?
• Greater reliance on technology in education.
– Course management systems (Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas.)
– Smart classrooms with advanced audio visual technology.
– On-line administrative processes.
– Dramatic increase in on-line learning.
– Growing adoption of electronic textbooks and eReaders in classrooms.
– Proliferation of iPad’s.
– Growing use of Google Apps and other online software platforms.
• As technology gets more integrated and complex, compliance is becoming critical.
• Proliferation of lawsuits.
Where are we starting from?
Self Audit
• Hired outside consultant to review:
– Websites & Web applications (sample size=15)
– Classrooms / Learning Spaces
– Computer Labs
• Results:
We were on par with other institutions that hadn’t
addressed accessibility
Our Discovery
• Areas to address from audit:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Overall accessibility policy for information and technology
Computer labs (128 computer labs & 3,648 workstations)
Instructional materials
Learning spaces/classrooms (~700 including labs/studios)
Library
Procurement of technology
Web based content
Web based systems
Other institutions: Insight & experience
• Joined ATHEN & EDUCAUSE’s “ITACCESS” listservs
• Attend conferences to learn from other institutions
• Conference call with Cal State about how they launched
their initiative
• Spoke with San Francisco State about their procurement
process
Vision, Strategy, & Delivery
Vision: Defined in the University policy
• We will be accessible
• The individual responsible for providing the technology or information is
responsible for making it accessible
• If it can’t be made accessible we should consider removing it
• Established the Accessible Technology Compliance Committee (ATCC) which is
empowered to effectuate change and is responsible for:
– Setting standards & guidelines
– Setting Timetables
– Enforcement
– Granting exceptions
Accessibility of Information and Technology Policy: Established November, 2012
Accessible Tech Compliance Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chair (CIO)
1 Staff (Director)
4 Faculty representatives
1 School / College technical (Director of Information Technology)
3 Computer Services (Assistant Vice President, Executive Directors)
1 Strategic Marketing and Communications (Director)
1 Disability Resources and Services (Associate Vice President)
1 Human Resources (Associate Vice President)
1 Provost Office (Vice Provost)
1 Library (Senior Associate University Librarian)
1 University Counsel (Associate University Counsel)
1 Facilities (Director of Architectural Services)
Initiative Structure - Working groups
Accessibility Liaisons
• An individual within each school, college, or campus that is
responsible for coordinating the accessibility remediation and
compliance efforts for their respective area:
– Establishes priorities of remediation
– Evaluates accessibility during the procurement process
– Works with budget unit head for funding accessibility initiatives
– Attends accessibility meetings and training
– Provides annual reports on the individual school or, colleges,
progress towards remediation
Scope of Work
•
•
•
•
Initial assessment
– Hire a consultant
Instructional materials
– Tools for DIYers
– Farming out remediation
Learning spaces & Computer Labs
– Software
– Hardware
– Remediation of physical spaces
Library and it’s components
– Online catalog
– Journals
– Alt Format for Course reserves
•
•
Multimedia
– Captioning/Transcripts
– Audio Descriptions/Transcripts
– Captioning of live & live streaming
of events
Web
– Web auditing solution
– web based systems (replace/fix?)
– Tools for testing
– Accessibility Q&A staff as part of the
software development lifecycle
Working groups: standards & guidelines
•
•
•
Web group
– Developed standards for web content
• WCAG 2.0 AA for internally developed/sponsored sites
• Section 508 for vendor controlled content
• Established deadlines for compliance
– Issued an RFP for a web auditing tool
Assistive Technology group
– Developed standards for Computer labs
– Developed standards for Classrooms (evolved into Learning Spaces)
Instructional Materials group*
– Started working on standards (abandoned in favor of how-tos)
– Developing checklists
*Need to get faculty involved in Instructional Materials workgroup
Learning space standards
• Worked with Disability Resources & Services to develop standards
• Standards address:
–
–
–
–
ADAAG specifications (i.e. reach distances & kick space for podiums)
Software
Hardware (including control panels for lights & AV equipment)
Smart carts
–
–
–
–
–
Auditorium/Theater space
Classrooms
Lecture hall
Seminar room
Studio space
• Types of spaces
• Developed a checklist based on the standards
Computer lab standards
•
•
Standards address:
– ADAAG specifications
• Reach distances (counter/workstation heights, peripherals)
• Route to workstation
• Kick space for workstations
• # of accessible workstations
• Signs & documentation
– Assistive Hardware (e.g. keyboards, trackballs, etc.)
– Assistive Software
– Pay to Print stations
– Training student workers
– Deadline for compliance
Developed a checklist based on the standards
Library
• Investigating workflows to make scanned text and video course reserves
accessible.
• Conducting an year-long review of all 500 database platforms and alerting
vendors to compliance issues.
• Remediating their website.
• Library programmers working with vendors to make products accessible:
– Ensemble video player.
– Contributed to Omeka (open source software for online exhibition; very
popular among digital humanists and cultural institutions.)
• Joining HathiTrust in large part to benefit print-disabled individuals so they can
have full-text access to the 11 million books, journals, etc.
Instructional Materials
• Surveyed file types on Learning Management System (Blackboard)
• Prioritized creation of checklists for the top four types of content
first:
Word
PowerPoint
Excel
PDF
• Incorporating Universal Design aspects in checklists
Purchasing
• Added language to purchasing policies requiring
procurement (purchase or otherwise) of accessible
information and technology
• Added language to RFP and contracts for accessibility &
remediation
• Developed an Exceptions Request form and process
workflow
• Worked with purchasing department to flag all software
requests
Exception Request workflow
Initial
Request
ATCC
Review
• Accessibility Liaison (or individual if there is no Accessibility Liaison)
submits request to accessibility@temple.edu
• Proof to make sure everything’s OK (may request clarification on some
items or revision to request if it is incomplete)
• Write up an executive summary of the request
• Request form and executive summary sent to ATCC for review and
decision (decision is requested within 6 business days)
• ATCC may request clarification on some items
• Decision is sent to Accessibility Liaison (or initial requestor)
Exceptions Request form
• Name & description of the product or resource
• Who is the audience? (And indicate approximately how many of each
type)
• What is the cost? (single year and/or recurring)
• Accessibility Roadmap? (and if so what's the timeline for compliance?)
• Describe how it is used.
• Is it currently in use?
• Which of the 508 category(ies) is relevant to the product?
• Is it required for coursework or job function?
• What exception category (specified in section 508) are you requesting?
• Explain why it meets the exception.
• Describe the reasonable accommodation you will provide.
Communicate & Empower others
Launching the initiative
• Communicate for buy in:
– CIO went on a “road show” presenting to:
•
•
•
•
Council of Deans
Faculty Senate
Business Managers
Collegial assemblies
– Presentation consisted of:
• Overview of policy & project
• Who is responsible (content creator is responsible)
• We’re here to help & what we’ve done so far
Launched Website
• Website launched to act as a clearinghouse for:
– Policies
– Guidelines
– How-to materials
– Quick tips
– Link to community
http://accessibility.temple.edu
Empowerment – Schools/Colleges
• Deans appoint “Accessibility Liaisons” in each school or
college Purchased a tool to allow users to audit their own
web content/sites/systems
• Distributed guidelines for computer labs and smart
classrooms
• Bi-weekly meetings with Accessibility Liaison committee
• Training “road shows” presenting the initiative and a
demonstration on making instructional materials
accessible
Make it easy in the beginning
Quick wins
• Survey and remediate Computer Services’ centrally owned/managed learning
spaces & computer labs first:
– Largest and most heavily used labs were remediated first
– Received feedback on the standards and checklists to improve and clarify
requirements
– Early remediation allowed us to determine average remediation costs
• Update all control panels in smart classrooms owned by Computer Services so
they ‘talk’
• Launched new web accessibility standards at university wide web designers
meeting
• Creative Services works with contractors to make sure new websites are
accessible
• Hired a visually impaired student worker to assist with testing software
Stay with it
Things take time
• Instructional materials guidelines
– 2 years and it’s still ongoing
– Reboot after the first 5 months
– Switched from policy to checklists with How-To’s
– Engaging larger group of faculty to assist with determining how
to tweak them for better adoption
• Web auditing software and remediation
– Had problems with end users logging into to the server
– Worked with vendor for patches
Annual Report
• Survey completed by all Accessibility Liaisons
Understand how each school/college is progressing annually.
Addresses:
– Web sites
– Instructional materials
– Learning spaces
– Computer labs
Summaries
Budget – how much was spent?
• Central funding covered an initial $500,000 for:
– Remediating computer labs (central and schools/colleges)
– Remediating learning spaces
– Software to audit websites
– Consulting and training
• Individual Schools/Colleges and Administrative Units have spent
$85,000+ to date for:
– Remediating computer labs
– Captioning
Note: figures do not include personnel costs
Lessons learned
Sometimes it takes a while to get a workable solution
Deadlines are good, but be flexible
Communication is key (particularly top down)
Spread out the work (form working groups)
People want to help, make it easy for them
Don’t come with all the answers, let people be a part of the
process
• Include representatives from facilities
• Be flexible (i.e. exceptions request form)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Questions?