1 / 21

Accessibility Status of State of Kansas Websites

Accessibility Status of State of Kansas Websites. AMP. Accessibility Management Platform Enterprise web accessibility assessment tool Available to all agencies Performs automated testing (and facilitates manual testing) Acquired in 2011, rolled out over 2011–2012. AMP Assessment.

sawyer-summers
Download Presentation

Accessibility Status of State of Kansas Websites

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. Accessibility Status of State of Kansas Websites

  2. AMP • Accessibility Management Platform • Enterprise web accessibility assessment tool • Available to all agencies • Performs automated testing (and facilitates manual testing) • Acquired in 2011, rolled out over 2011–2012

  3. AMP Assessment

  4. Assessment Sample • Matches last year’s for direct comparison • 63 agency home page domains, as represented in the Agency Contact Listing page of the Communication Directory on the Department of Administration website (with corrections and a few additions) • Spidered each site up to 250 pages • Automated testing

  5. Pages • 11,031 pages scanned • 11,084 last year • 8,041 pages had one or more violations (72.9%) • Down from 9,292 pages (83.8%) last year • ~11% reduction in pages with violations

  6. Numbers of Violations

  7. Agencies and Violations • Since last year, 70% of agencies have reduced their number of violations. • Overall and average numbers of violations dropped 35%, due to an overall elimination of almost 41,000 violations.

  8. AMP For more information about AMP: http://oits.ks.gov/kpat/tool/

  9. KPI • AMP usage • Web content accessibility

  10. PDF Accessibility

  11. PDF • Portable Document Format • Multiplatform standard for electronic document exchange

  12. Broadly Adopted • Reliable, looks the same everywhere (Windows, Mac, Linux, tablet, phone, printer, etc.) • Difficult to alter but may be secured, stamped, annotated, redacted, digitally signed and much more • Works offline • PDF/A files suitable for permanent archival • Sturdy, powerful and flexible; essentially “electronic paper” • Easy to produce

  13. Challenges • As visual fidelity was the sole original intent of PDF, it has no intrinsic semantics. • Anyone can and does make PDF documents and forms, so content production is often beyond web content managers’ control • Appearance is unmanaged (no CSS or equivalent) • No visibility: even 1,000 page PDF files are “managed” by content management systems as single objects • While web pages can easily be fixed or tweaked, changing PDF files usually means returning to the source

  14. Accessibility Requirements • ITEC Policy 1210, Section 508, and WCAG all apply regardless of the technology, so PDF documents on state websites must be accessible just like HTML. • In order for a PDF document to be accessible, it must satisfy many of the same functional requirements as a traditional HTML web page (or any other form of ICT), such as: • Alternative text for images • Identification of document structure (headings) • Programmatically identifiable table relationships • Programmatically identifiable labels for form controls • Adaptability to multiple modalities • Etc.

  15. Scope • Prevalence of PDF documents on state websites is significant—comparable to HTML! • One rough estimate (based on a small sample) suggests about half of the PDFs on state websites are untagged, and about 90% are non-compliant.

  16. Authoring Accessible PDF • PDF accessibility must be addressed both in PDF itself and, in many cases, in the format of the originating document from which the PDF is created (e.g., Word). • Unlike HTML, accessible development and remediation of PDF requires additional software tools that are not freely available.

  17. NetCentricCommonLook • NetCentric, with its CommonLook line of products and services, seems to be only major player in PDF accessibility space. • CommonLook Trial • 23 people on evaluation team, from 12 agencies/organizations • Evaluated CommonLook Office and CommonLook PDF • 60-day trial • 7 webinar meetings with NetCentric personnel

  18. Trial Outcome • Overall sentiment was positive • Consensus that acquisition for regular use would be desirable • All agreed any purchase should be done collectively for volume discount

  19. Request • Would like agencies to identify—without commitment—potential users of each product: • CommonLook Office, for non-technical content creators using Microsoft Office (specifically, Word and PowerPoint) • CommonLook PDF, for more technical users who need to tag existing PDFs using Adobe Acrobat Professional (How many Acrobat licenses?) • Estimated numbers of users of each will determine available pricing

  20. PDF Accessibility For additional PDF accessibility information: http://oits.ks.gov/kpat/resources/#pdf

  21. Contact For questions, comments, etc., please contact: Cole Robison Director of IT Accessibility Office of Information Technology Services State of Kansas cole.robison@ks.gov (785) 291-3016

More Related