1 / 44

CARAT/ IT Partnership Web Accessibility Initiative

CARAT/ IT Partnership Web Accessibility Initiative. Mike Elledge Software Accessibility/Usability Specialist 12/10/03. Overview. April 2003 Web Design Survey CARAT/ IT Partnership Initiatives. Survey Purpose. Determine UM web designer

thuong
Download Presentation

CARAT/ IT Partnership Web Accessibility Initiative

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. CARAT/ IT PartnershipWeb Accessibility Initiative Mike Elledge Software Accessibility/Usability Specialist 12/10/03

  2. Overview • April 2003 Web Design Survey • CARAT/ IT Partnership Initiatives

  3. Survey Purpose • Determine UM web designer • Awareness, knowledge and use of accessibility techniques • Needs • Inform CARAT IT Partnership project • Benchmark software and web accessibility • Prioritize support tools and activities • Fielded April 2003

  4. Participants • Identified by titles, email groups • 140 accessed; 90+ completed; 66 identified • Broad-based: no department > 15% • Varied amount of knowledge • Very knowledgeable 14%, Somewhat 59%, Not Very 27%

  5. Titles • Programmers (30%) • Webmasters (15%) • Directors (12%) • Graphic designers (8%) • Info arch (8%)

  6. Responsibilities • Multiple Roles • Info arch, content, graphic design, etc. • Two-thirds: 4 or more roles • One-quarter: 6+ • Multiple Responsibilities • Most create, maintain and renovate • Most (71%) worked on 3+ sites

  7. Tags • Many tags used • 95% use at least one accessibility tag • Three-quarters use 5+ • Half use 7+ • Strongest correlation: • Programmers/ consultants from SI or Media Union

  8. Tags • Many types used • Alt (87%) • Headings (79%) • Style sheets (76%) • Web safe colors (55%) • Percentage tables (55%) • Table headers (48%) • Relative fonts (44%)

  9. Attitudes • “Strongly/Somewhat Agree” • Accessibility is important: 100% • I am aware of accessibility: 96% • I am knowledgeable: 73% • “Accessibility is a UM priority” • 54% agree • 46% disagree

  10. Attitudes

  11. Needs • “Extremely/Very Helpful” • Guidelines: 79% • Website: 77% • Workshops: 73% • Diagnostic Software: 72% • Reports: 63%

  12. Needs

  13. Verification • One-third (37%) verify with tool • Bobby (68%) • Eleven percent use adaptive tech • Lynx (60%) • IBM HPR (40%) • JAWS (30%)

  14. Differences Between Groups • “Very” vs. “Not” Knowledgeable • Knowledgeable • More responsibilities • More experience • Want resources • Not Knowledgeable • Less direct responsibility • Less familiarity with techniques and verification • Want more resources

  15. Differences Between Groups

  16. Differences Between Groups

  17. Differences Between Groups

  18. Conclusions • Support for accessibility is strong • Use of tags prevalent • Desire to learn more • Different knowledge = different approach • Leverage “Very” knowledge • Expand “Somewhat” knowledge • Increase “Not” awareness

  19. Actions • Contacted “Very Knowledgeable” • Solicited experiences and anticipated needs • Providing resources for “Somewhats” • Workshops on creating accessible sites and renovating existing sites • Web site with info on tags, techniques, issues

  20. Future Actions • Introduce accessibility to “Nots” • Future workshop on “Why is accessibility important?” • Address “Somewhat” Needs • Website Completion • Workshops • “How to Evaluate and Retrofit Existing Sites” • Address “Very Knowledgeable” Needs • Workshops • “Making Flash Accessible” • Guidelines

  21. IT Partnership Activities to date • Website • Workshops • Support • Outreach • Analysis

  22. Website • Accessibility and Website Design • 90 percent completed • Work in progress • Information, examples, resources, tutorial • Example http://ltg-projects.ummu.umich.edu/~melledge/ accessibilitysite/

  23. Workshops • Current • Enriching Scholarship (May 2003), Investing in Abilities Week (October 2003) • “Designing Accessible Websites” • “Creating Accessible Course Materials”

  24. Designing Accessible Websites • Rationale for Accessibility • Needs of Persons with Disabilities • Video of Computer Use by Persons with Disabilities • Tutorial: Hands-on Training • Evaluation • Resources

  25. Creating Accessible Materials • Rationale for Accessibility • Needs of Persons with Disabilities • Video of Computer Use by Persons with Disabilities • Tutorial: Hands-on Training • Word • PDF • Powerpoint • Captioning • Resources

  26. Workshops • Current • Guest Lecturer • “Introduction to Accessibility” @ SI • “Designing Accessible Websites” @ WCC

  27. Workshops • Future • Enriching Scholarship (May 2004) • “Retrofitting Websites for Accessibility” • “Making FLASH Accessible” • Guest Workshops • Prelim discussions for MSU, EMU • “Designing Accessible Websites” • “Creating Accessible Course Materials”

  28. Support • Ad Hoc • During workshops • After workshops • Scholarly Publishing Office (publishing) • CRLT (formatting) • UM Spinal Cord Project (renovation)

  29. Outreach • Participation on CfDC • Invest in Abilities Week workshops • Presentation of survey results • Participation in UMInDS • Planned and organized kick-off event • Member of Steering Committee • Establishing relationship with Center for Independent Living

  30. Website Analysis • Identify Sites • UM Spinal Cord Injury Site • Libraries • Review Pages • Bobby 5.0: Section 508, WCAG Guidelines • Adaptive Tech: JAWS • Resolve Issues • Recommend Revisions

  31. Identify Site • UM Spinal Cord Injury Site

  32. Review Pages 1. Bobby 5.0 • Section 508 (also check WCAG 1.0)

  33. Review Pages

  34. Page title Tab order Navigation skips Access keys Page headings Link descriptions Image descriptions Working form controls Adequate form labels Table summaries Table captions Table coordinates Review Pages 2.JAWS Screen Reader

  35. Review Pages 3. Visual Checks • Multiple search mechanisms • Use of specialty code • Javascript alternatives

  36. Resolve Issues

  37. Make Recommendations • Section 508 compliance • Add alt tags • Enhanced accessibility • Add skip links • Add/revise link titles • Add Abbreviation tags

  38. Results • Library Sites • Media Union, Rackham, SILS, Taubman, Dental • Consistent Findings • Minor, but significant, code violations • Accessibility improvements warranted • Dental exception: passes test • Next Steps • Recommend enhancements • Review additional sites • Meet with web masters • Develop action plans

  39. Electronic Reserves • Taubman, University Reserves, SSD • Findings • Hard documents scanned as images, stored locally • Electronic documents linked to source • Students needing text files can ask SSD for them • Challenges • Text versions remove images, graphs • No control over source files when linking • Books need to be ordered, dismembered, scanned

  40. Electronic Reserves • Next Steps • Review with tools, adaptive tech • Meet with other libraries

  41. Analysis • Winter/Spring Projects • University websites • CHEF Accessibility • Google Search Engine

  42. Questions? Comments?

  43. Respondent Attitudes

  44. Respondent Needs

More Related