1 / 44

Web Accessibility: How is Higher Education Responding to the Need?

Web Accessibility: How is Higher Education Responding to the Need?. Terry Thompson. Saroj Primlani. Terrill Thompson Technology Accessibility Specialist University of Washington tft@u.washington.edu. 600 Million. People with disabilities (10% of world population).

xue
Download Presentation

Web Accessibility: How is Higher Education Responding to the Need?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Web Accessibility: How is Higher Education Responding to the Need? Terry Thompson Saroj Primlani Terrill Thompson Technology Accessibility Specialist University of Washington tft@u.washington.edu

  2. 600 Million People with disabilities (10% of world population) Source: World Health Organization

  3. 52.2 Million People with disabilities in the United States Source: Your HighEdWeb Handouts booklet

  4. 1 million College students with disabilities in the U.S. • Source: “Roadmaps & Rampways”. American Association for the Advancement of Science

  5. 3,025 complaints of disability-related discrimination filed with U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in 2006 • Source: OCR FY 2006 Report to Congress

  6. Millions and Millions

  7. Howare we respondingto the need?

  8. How to Measure “How” • Measure outcomes (i.e., are higher education web pages accessible?) • Measure policies, procedures, and promising practices

  9. How #1Measuring Outcomes: “Are our web pages accessible?”

  10. W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 • 14 guidelines • Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints • Priority 1 = MUST do • Priority 2 = SHOULD do • Priority 3 = MAY do

  11. Section 508 Standards • Section 508 is federal law that requires accessibility of federal agencies’ electronic and information technology (E&IT) • In 508 standards, web is one of six categories of E&IT • Based in part on WCAG Priority 1 • 16 standards • Provides a minimum standard for accessibility (WCAG 1.0 has 65 checkpoints)

  12. Kay Lewis et al (2007)University of Texas at Austin • “Student Web Accessibility Project” • Manually evaluated 99 self-referred websites • 12 sites met all Section 508 standards • At least 25 of the sites were developed using Flash (suggests a need for Flash accessibility expertise, education, and outreach)

  13. Sean Kane et al (2007) • Home Pages of 100 Top Universities • Assessed accessibility using: • Bobby (Watchfire) • CynthiaSays (HiSoftware) • Functional Accessibility Evaluator (FAE)(31 rules across five categories)

  14. Kane Results: Home Page Accessibility • FAE % of Rules Passed • Navigation & Orientation 36.07% • Text Equivalents 51.24% • Scripting 54.00% • Styling 50.95% • HTML Standards 69.74% • 36 pages contained no Priority 1 WCAG errors in either Bobby or Cynthia • 2 pages contained no Priority 1, 2, or 3 WCAG errors

  15. Terry Thompson et al (2007): A Global Benchmark • 7239 higher education home pages from 162 countries • 5281 national government pages from 181 countries • Evaluated all pages using FAE. Results showed lower accessibility than Kane’s results, but categories were proportional.

  16. Thompson et al (2007)Web Accessibility over Time • Manual assessment of home pages from 127 higher education institutions in the Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska) • One benchmark assessment • Second assessment at 3 months • Third assessment at 6 months • Between assessments, provided varying levels of outreach and consultation to a sample of the institutions

  17. Significant Overall Change in Six Months • Three checkpoints improved • Alt text for images • Accessible markup on forms • Skip navigation links • Three checkpoints worsened • All features accessible using keyboard • Content accessible without scripts • Content accessible without CSS • The effect was stronger for those who received accessibility training

  18. How #2Measuring Policies, Procecures, and Promising Practices

  19. Results of the 2008 ATHEN Survey on Accessible Technology in Higher Education ATHEN = Access Technology Higher Education Networkathenpro.org

  20. Research Sample • 149 individuals • 106 higher education institutions • 52 from United States • 28 from United Kingdom • 12 from Canada • 9 from Ireland • 3 from South Africa • 1 each from Australia and New Zealand

  21. U.S Participants • 44.2% from doctorate-granting universities • 32.7% from associate’s colleges • 21.2% from master’s colleges/universities • 51.9% from West • 25.0% from Midwest • 11.5% from South • 11.5% from Northeast

  22. Q: Do you have a web accessibility policy?

  23. Q: Is there a person or office specifically responsible for web accessibility consultation?

  24. Q: Do you have policies or procedures that require consideration of accessibility when acquiring IT?

  25. Q: Was accessibility a consideration when acquiring an LMS?

  26. Q: Was accessibility a consideration when acquiring a Content Mgmt System?

  27. Q: Do you have a project, system, or strategy in place to assess IT accessibility?

  28. Q: Do you have centralize services for making multimedia accessible? (% “Yes” responses, U.S.)

  29. Case Study: University of Washington

  30. History of UW IT Accessibility 1984 Micro Support Group 1990 Adaptive Technology Lab 1992 ATL Lab Manager, DO-IT 2001 AccessIT 2003 AccessibleWeb user group 2006 AccessComputing

  31. January 2007

  32. 2007 • Created new 0.5 FTE position for IT accessibility support • Launched two new websites • UW Accessible IT site (public) http://www.washington.edu/accessibility • Special Interest Group on Accessibility in IT(internal wiki, strong emphasis on collaboration and community building)

  33. March `08: UW Accessible IT CBI • IT administrators • Computer support staff • Web developers and managers • Librarians • Purchasing and contracts personnel • Faculty members • Accessibility professionals • Key vendors • Representatives from all 3 UW campuses

  34. CBI Outcomes • Next steps for the university, Accessibility in IT SIG, vendors, and individuals • Follow-up meeting to identify working groups and begin work • Accessibility representation on Emerging Technologies Group(s) • November `08: Presentation to the UW Web Council

  35. Questions?

More Related