CIC IT Accessibility & Usability Group Survey on Institutional IT Accessibility 2008 Contributors Mary Beth Allen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Alice Anderson, University of Wisconsin-Madison Patty Bradley-Diehl, University of Michigan Michael Elledge, Michigan State University (Editor) Jon Gunderson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne Margaret Londergan, Indiana University Kenneth Petri, Ohio State University Mary Stores, Indiana University Executive Summary........................................................................................................................3 Methodology..............................................................................................................................3 Findings......................................................................................................................................3 Next Steps..................................................................................................................................4 Alternate Media and Captioning.....................................................................................................5 Background................................................................................................................................5 Participants.................................................................................................................................5 Results........................................................................................................................................5 Trends and Implications..............................................................................................................6 Disability Services.........................................................................................................................8 Background................................................................................................................................8 Participants.................................................................................................................................8 Results........................................................................................................................................8 Trends and Implications............................................................................................................12 Recommended Survey Revisions.............................................................................................13 Educational Technologies.............................................................................................................14 Background..............................................................................................................................14 Participants...............................................................................................................................14 Results......................................................................................................................................15 Trends and Implications............................................................................................................21 Online Library Services................................................................................................................23 Participants...............................................................................................................................23 Results......................................................................................................................................23 Trends and Implications............................................................................................................24 Recommended Survey Revisions.............................................................................................24 Policy and Governance.................................................................................................................25 Participants...............................................................................................................................25 Results......................................................................................................................................25 Trends and Implications............................................................................................................27 Recommended Survey Revisions.............................................................................................28 Website Accessibility Design, Evaluation, and Training.............................................................29 Participants...............................................................................................................................29 Results of Survey......................................................................................................................29 Trends and Implications............................................................................................................31 Recommended Survey Revisions.............................................................................................32 Executive Summary This summarizes the results of the first Survey on Institutional IT Accessibility, conducted by the CIC IT Accessibility & Usability Group (A/U), an advisory group to the CIC CIOs. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about the accessibility practices at CIC institutions, providing a common point for ongoing comparison. The survey is intended to be conducted every other year, with the results presented bi-annually to the CIOs at each school and to participants of the A/U group’s annual June Conference. Ideally, the survey will provide context for the working groups of the A/U group as they address common issues. Methodology A/U subgroup members discussed, drafted and refined the questionnaires for the survey, which was released in July 2008. Data was either collected directly by members of the A/U subgroup or filled-in by department representatives, using SurveyGizmo, an accessible online survey application. Six areas were addressed: alternative formats and captioning; disability services; educational technologies; on-line library services; policy and governance; and website design, evaluation, and training. Survey drafts were completed in January 2009 and the Executive Summary was released in March 2009. Findings Alternative Media and Captioning (7 schools reporting) All responding CIC schools provide some type of print conversion to accessible formats, typically on a very large scale, and most often using dedicated staff. Quality control and tracking student requests is common. Sharing of accessible electronic files is not common, however publishers have become more responsive in providing materials for duplication or conversion. Recommended areas for future CIC collaboration include strengthening relationships with publishers so that accessible materials are provided, sharing captioning practices among campuses, lobbying for standardization of accessible eText formats, and exploring partnerships between providers of alternate formats and electronic library resources. Disability Services (6) The amount and type of disability services is increasing across CIC campuses, driven by increased demand, especially for students with cognitive issues. Surprisingly, the percent of students reporting disabilities varies significantly between campuses, as does the type of disabilities reported. In general, cognitive issues are more frequent among students than physiological issues. All CIC schools provide a full range of accessibility services to students. AT resources differ across campuses, with some providing disability work stations and others networked services. One campus provides both hardware and software to students with disabilities (Indiana University). Increased demand for services and space is expected to continue. Educational Technologies (7) CIC schools use a variety of commercial and open-source learning management systems (LMS). Most schools rely on a combination of vendor claims and internal testing to determine LMS accessibility. Internal requirements may be based on state, Federal (508) or internal criteria. Evaluation is often informal and ad hoc, although generally resides in a single entity. The degree to which accessibility influences purchasing decisions varies between campuses, but generally has some impact. Similarly, faculty and instructor accessibility training is available on most campuses, but may not be included in all workshops. Course content is generally not covered by university accessibility policies and is addressed on an as-needed basis, usually by the disability services office. Online Library Services (8) About half of CIC libraries have evaluated online library services for accessibility. E-reserves (electronic reserves) and online databases are generally not accessible. Services managed directly by libraries, such as online support and online catalogs, are more likely to meet at least some accessibility guidelines. Libraries also report that they are working to improve the accessibility of their electronic resources, while continuing to provide direct assistance to persons with disabilities. Policy and Governance (7) All CIC schools reported having an ADA position, and about two-thirds have formal web or software accessibility policies. All policies govern websites developed at the university or provided by outside vendors; about 25% also include software. Most schools report additional initiatives in support of accessibility including adoption of a formal policy (MSU), training and consultation (UW), policy updating (Penn State), implementation of new policies to meet state laws (U-Illinois) and web testing (Indiana University). Website Accessibility Design, Evaluation and Training (8) Website design is decentralized at CIC institutions, with little work going to outside vendors. Over half of campuses have formal accessibility policies for HTML, about half of which also address Flash, PDF and captioning. Most monitoring is done ad hoc by developers, rather than centrally. Most schools promote browser-based compliance software; two schools continue to use LIFT, and three employ FAE. Efforts to improve technology accessibility have been directed at learning management systems and portals, content management, library databases and webmail systems. Accessibility training is typically provided as a component of other courses that focus on technologies such as HTML and PDF rather than as independent courses. Accessible Flash training is provided by only one campus. Only UIUC has three or more staff who spends a majority of their time on accessibility, although most campuses have people who spend a smaller portion of their time. Campuses do not have a systematic process for evaluating and remediating non-compliant websites. Next Steps The next step will be to distribute the survey to CIC CIOs for questions and feedback. Along with suggestions made by the authors of each section, their responses will be used to revise the survey prior to its next implementation (fall 2010, when statistics are available for the 2009-2010 academic years). In the meantime, the data can be used by members of the CIC IT A/U to decide on next year’s task forces and topics for the June 2009 Conference. Alternate Media and Captioning Submitted by: Margaret Londergan and Mary Stores, UITS Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers, Indiana University Background Developments in the field of electronic information access and in particular access to print material in electronic format have wide-reaching implications for individuals with disabilities. Electronic collections are being developed at most universities alone or in collaboration with other universities or with businesses. Movement from the “read materials to the student” paradigm to an electronic text paradigm with all the control users have over presentation and interaction with electronic text has been dramatic. Given the increasing prevalence of electronic collections of print material being created by university libraries, the Google Booksearch Project, Bookshare, the University of Georgia AccessText project and other electronic collections, a review of what the CIC institutions are doing to provide alternate media is timely. Participants Seven CIC schools participated including . Indiana University (Manager, Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers) . Michigan State University (Adaptive Technology Specialist) . The Ohio State University (Auxiliary Services Administrator) . University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana (Coordinator) . University of Illinois-Chicago (Disability Resource Center) . University of Michigan (Coordinator for Students with Visual Impairments, Blind and Chronic Health Conditions) . University of Wisconsin at Madison - (Adaptive Technology Specialist) Results Text Conversion Services All respondents provide some type of conversion of print to accessible format for individuals with print disabilities. All provide conversion of print to .txt files. Despite concerns for diminished requests for Braille materials for the blind, six schools provide Braille for students who are blind and read Braille. Learning disabled individuals with dyslexia are supported by six schools through conversion of print to specialized Kurzweil 3000 or Wynn format. Six schools also convert print material to PDF files. Five respondents convert math to Nemeth code, caption video materials and create tactile graphics. Slightly more than half provide text transcriptions of audio and podcasts. Pages Converted and Staffing The number of pages of print converted to an alternate format is impressive, with four schools converting between 20,000 and 50,000 and three schools converting more than 50,000 pages per year. This work is done by full-time FTE on five campuses, while four campuses have two full- time staff, one has one full-time FTE. One campus has a quarter time position and the other has no full-time FTEs working on text conversion. Part-time student and staff support for text conversion plays a major role in text conversion work on two campuses (each with 12 and 17 part-time workers, respectively). Other schools rely on between one and three quarters -time and one half-time worker. Quality Control Even with the best systems, creation of alternate media is not without error due to scanning and optical character recognition imperfections. The challenge of providing the most accurate alternate media formats is met by five schools by using some sort of accuracy checking/quality assurance procedure on all print matter converted to alternate format. One school checks only if a student complains about quality; one school checks only some of the converted documents. Sharing Materials Considering the work to prepare alternate format materials, it would be helpful to be able to share these documents if possible with other entities. Due to copyright law, institutions have been reluctant to do this. This is likely to change given the rapid emergence of electronic book collections. However, one caution needs to be noted. “Electronic document” does not mean “accessible document”. So it is unlikely that alternate media services can be supplanted in full by any electronic collection…even those claiming to take accessible document creation into account. One long-existing repository for electronic books is Bookshare from Bookshare.org. Two schools contribute their books to Bookshare which qualifies as a designated entity under the Chaffee Amendment which is an exception to copyright law. Designated entities exist solely for the purpose of the creation, collection and distribution of alternate format print materials. Tracking Work Alternate media production is a client-based service with many steps from initiation of work with the request for print in an alternate format to the completion of work with delivery of an appropriate alternate format document to a client. Many steps take place during the conversion process and timeliness of delivery is crucial. Therefore, three schools use custom databases to track student needs, delivery dates and workflow. Three use Excel spreadsheets for this purpose. One school uses a combination of custom survey and manual tracking. Respondents report that publishers have become more responsive to requests for permission to copy materials for print impaired students. Most schools make requests from publishers prior to beginning the text conversion process. National Library Services, Recordings for Blind and Dyslexic, Bookshare, publishers and other emerging electronic collections provide some access to appropriate alternate format materials but do not satisfy all requests due to the wide variety of formats and actual documents needed. For example, many publisher documents are provided in inaccessible PDF format and must be converted. Trends and Implications Most universities use high-speed or some form of scanning to create and provide alternate format materials to students with print impairment. Publishers who once spurned this idea have become increasingly responsive to requests for electronic versions of textbooks and other print-based academic materials. While many of the publisher-provided documents need post-production processing to provide the documents in accessible format, getting a clean copy of a document for conversion from publishers is a step in the right direction, eliminating errors caused by scanning. Those publishers who are unable to provide electronic versions more quickly either provide copies of materials or permission to copy student or library owned materials. These trends affect the workflow and practice of institutions providing alternate media. A great deal of interest is focused currently on electronic texts. Although these interests often do not take into account the need for alternate formats, many institutions are expanding their electronic text initiatives through their libraries as well as through partnerships with businesses. University of Michigan, Indiana University and others have partnered with the Google Book Search Project to create a centralized, massive electronic collection. The Hathi Trust…the UM and IU component of the project…is even creating books in alternative format for those who are blind. Another new project, AccessText, from the University of Georgia system in conjunction with the American Association of Publishers, is getting started on a project to create a clearing- house which would provide direct student access to print materials in the appropriate format for each individual needing alternate format. All of these initiatives as well as those that have been around for awhile like Bookshare.org and the Guttenberg project warrant continued observation and data gathering. This is particularly important because the effectiveness and value of these resources with electronic materials converted from print remains to be tested in terms of appropriate accessibility for those with print impairment. Relationships with publishers and CIC institutions providing alternate format have changed from indifference to limited partnership. Strengthening this partnership between publishers and the CIC schools is an interesting area of exploration which could lead to better partnerships and alternate format materials. Much information needs to be gathered regarding captioning practices across CIC institutions. Podcasts and vodcasts both raise serious issues of accessibility for both those with vision problems as well as those with hearing impairment. For both alternate media for print materials and captioning/transcription for podcasts and vodcasts as well as audio description for vodcasts, issues of best practice, sharing of resources and policy need continued research and evaluation. Work between those providing alternate media and those with responsibility for electronic library collections on each campus should be explored. Partnerships could lead to better solutions for both. And finally, attention to national and international efforts on standardization of alternate formats of electronic texts should be ongoing. The DAISY standard for materials for those who are blind is one example of this kind of standard. The DAISY standard has been embraced by the government’s Department of Education as the standard for all K-12 alternate format materials. While this standard may work well for those who are blind or low-vision, it is not entirely clear that it works well for those with learning or other disabilities. Disability Services Submitted by: Michael Elledge, Assistant Director, Usability & Accessibility Center (UAC), Michigan State University Background This section of the survey was intended to gather information about the demand for disability services, the services offered and the availability of assistive devices on campus. Information was provided by the office(s) providing services to students with disabilities. Percentages of students with disabilities have been calculated based on the number of students at the main campuses of the schools, as reported by the schools for fall 2007. Participants Six of eleven CIC campuses participated in this section of the survey: . University of Michigan (Admin Assistant/Business Mgr, Services for Students with Disabilities) . University of Illinois at Chicago (Assistive Technology Specialist, Disability Resource Center) . University of Wisconsin-Madison (Director, McBurney Disability Resource Center) . Michigan State University (Director, Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities) . Ohio State University (Director, Office for Disability Services) . Indiana University (Manager, Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers). Results The survey addressed four general areas: . Types of Disabilities . Disability Services Offered . Availability of Assistive Devices . Expectations for Change in the Coming Year Number and Types of Disabilities Students with disabilities are defined as those students who have formally identified themselves as having disabilities. They generally do this to receive assistance from the disabilities department on campus or to receive an accommodation in one or more of their classes. Persons with disabilities have always been significantly underrepresented in university enrollment, both in comparison to the general population, and in comparison to their cohorts attending higher education. There are many circumstances that contribute to this including the following: “Students with disabilities are more likely than their non-disabled peers to delay enrollment after high school, be financially independent of parent income, report lower income and are more likely to enroll in less than the traditional full time load in community or vocational programs lasting two or less years (NPSAS 2000).” “This leads the majority of students with disabilities to be unable to complete a four-year degree, which is especially unfortunate since four- year graduates have employment rates and median earnings nearly comparable to their peers without disabilities.”1 Although there has been some growth in the number of students identifying themselves as having physical disabilities, there has been nearly exponential growth in the number identifying themselves as having cognitive issues, such as ADD and learning disabilities. This is primarily the result of improved diagnosis of such disorders over the past two decades and the willingness of students to seek assistance. The six reporting universities reflect these general trends. It should also be noted that there still is a significant amount of underreporting of disabilities by students, for a number of reasons including: the perceived stigma of having a disability, wanting to cope without assistance, and not knowing they have a disability. National Statistics In a recent (1999) study, the number of postsecondary undergraduate students identified as having disabilities in the United States was found to represent 6% of the student body. The types of disabilities reported by these students were2: Type Disability % Learning disabilities 45.7% Mobility or orthopedic impairments 13.9% Health impairments 11.6% Mental illness or emotional disturbance 7.8% Hearing impairments 5.6% Blindness and visual impairments 4.4% Speech or language impairments 0.9% Other impairments 9.1% CIC Statistics The number of reported disabilities is lower in this sample than the national statistics. Overall, students reporting disabilities were 5,976 of the 240,122 students enrolled at the six reporting schools, or approximately 2.5% of the total student population. The percentage varied from a high of 5.5% at Indiana University to a low of 1.2% at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 1 Dr. Joanie Friend Association on Higher Education And Disability, Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, February 28, 2003 2 An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Postsecondary Education Quick Information System, August 1999 (Taken from DO-IT Faculty Room Page, 12/12/08: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/Rights/Background/statistics.html) 3 Northwestern University, Services for Students with Disabilities, Disability Law and Higher Education, http://www.northwestern.edu/disability/law.html 4 Ibid. There were two major categories of disabilities in the survey: cognitive and physiological. CIC IT statistics were generally higher than the national average for cognitive issues, and lower for physiological disabilities. Of the nearly 6,000 students reporting disabilities, over fifty percent (57.4%) had cognitive issues. This total excludes psychological issues (19.1%). Cognitive disabilities as a percentage of all reported disabilities varied from a high of 67.5% at Ohio State University to a low of 31.6% at University of Illinois at Chicago. The addition of psychological issues raises the cognitive total to over three-quarters of all reported disabilities. This confirms the common observation that the number of students reporting cognitive issues far-outstrips the number of students with physiological ones. Students with physiological issues (including impaired mobility, blindness and low vision, deafness, chronic health conditions and traumatic brain injuries) represented about one-quarter (23.5%) of all reported disabilities, ranging from a high of 51.2% at University of Illinois at Chicago to a low of 13.1% at Ohio State University. Impaired mobility represented about a third of physiological issues, followed by blindness and low vision (19%), deafness and chronic health issues (each about 17%). Please note that these totals should be used for general comparison only because schools may differ in how they categorize disabilities and tabulate students with multiple disabilities. Types of Services Offered Universities are required under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. Section ™504 "No otherwise qualified [sic] individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of his/her [sic] disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."3 Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extends anti-discrimination legislation to all institutions of higher education regardless of whether or not the institution receives federal funds. This federal anti-discrimination statute became effective on January 26, 1992. The ADA provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local governmental services and telecommunications. The act contains five titles; Titles II through V apply specifically to students who attend postsecondary education.4 5 National Center for Educational Statistics. [1999]. An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Taken from DO-IT Faculty Room Page, 12/12/08: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/Rights/Background/statistics.html The amount and type of assistance varies according to each student’s individual needs, but in general, assistance takes the form of these five services: testing (accommodations), academic (counseling and tutoring), AT-related support (software instruction, setup and provision), conversion (captioning, text to Braille, tactile graphics, print conversion, transcriptions) and in situ (note taking, ASL, reading/taping, proctoring). National Statistics According the Department of Education in 1999,5 the most frequent accommodations provided were: . Alternate exam formats or additional exam time (88%). . Tutors to assist with ongoing coursework (77%). . Readers, classroom notetakers, or scribes (69%). . Registration assistance or priority registration (62%). . Adaptive equipment or technology (58%). . Textbooks on tape (55%). . Sign language interpreters (45%). . Course substitutions or waivers (42%). CIC Statistics Just as in the national statistics, test accommodations and academic counseling/tutoring were by far the most frequently provided services. Test accommodations accounted for half (50%) of all administered services and academic counseling/tutoring accounted for another 25%. These percentages varied a great deal between campuses, however. Test accommodations ranged from a high of 94% of the disability services provided (University of Michigan) to a low of 15% (Michigan State University). Similarly, academic counseling and tutoring had a wide range, encompassing 60 percent of services (MSU) and 0 percent for University of Wisconsin--Madison (perhaps provided by another department). The next most common service was AT-related support (16.2%). Nearly all of this was provided by Indiana University. MSU and University of Illinois at Chicago provided AT services to a lesser degree. Conversion services made up 5.5% of disability services, although this may be understated because of conversions by other departments such as library services. Print was the most common conversion provided, comprising about three-quarters of all conversions. Overall, the amount of conversion was fairly consistent, ranging between 6.1% of services (MSU) and 10.4% (University of Illinois at Chicago). Print conversion at the University of Michigan was a small percentage of its services (1.2%), probably the result of the majority of it being done by libraries and not the disabilities office. The smallest category, in situ support, consisted of less than 4% of services provided to students, of which over 80 percent was for note-taking or scribes. Availability of Assistive Devices Students with disabilities use assistive devices to ameliorate their conditions. Devices can take the form of software (screen readers, screen enlargers), hardware (ergonomic keyboards or mice, oversize display screens), furniture (ergonomic work stations) or electronics (switching and tracking devices), or some combination of the above. The approach varies according to the university; some schools provide laptops loaded with assistive technology software to students with disabilities, others dedicate a limited number of computers containing AT software to students with disabilities, others put accessible software on part (labs) or all (network) of their computer systems. Adaptive technology totals were dominated by Indiana University, which accounted for 98% of the total reported. Although Indiana is likely the leader in providing AT for students because of system-wide networking and a policy of providing students with software, specific figures for MSU, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ohio State University were not provided. U of M and U-Illinois at Chicago provide a number of AT-equipped workstations on campus, rather than networking all computers. All six universities reported having dedicated AT labs, and five of six reported having Braille printers. Three universities reported having tactile printers; one (University of Wisconsin--Madison) also reported making tape players available (this cannot be compared to other schools since it was not a specific survey question). Changes Anticipated As the number of students with disabilities increases, universities face the challenge of providing both a broader range and increased quantity of services. Anticipated changes fall into two rough categories: . Increased demand due to the expansion in services to new groups (employees, community and veterans) or growth in specific conditions (such as chronic health, learning, ADHD and mental health), or . The need to expand space to meet increasing needs (for media production and distraction- reduced spaces, and for service delivery). Other areas where change is expected include: integrating accessibility into campus instruction, expanding co-curricular access, more online training and outreach, addressing the transition into and out of the university, accessibility of web-based academic systems and expanded web accessibility testing. Trends and Implications Since this is the first survey, it is premature to identify trends from within the data. It does appear from the comments, however, that the number of students needing assistance continues to increase, while the resources for accommodating their needs remains constrained. As university budgets face continued financial pressure this is not likely to change anytime soon, and will probably become worse. Also it appears from the data that although universities may differ in the methods they use for delivery, all provide a broad range of services to students with disabilities. The types of accessibility services requested by students vary a great deal from campus to campus, nonetheless. Although most of this data is complete, the next step will be to clarify reports form several campuses. For example, it will be necessary to obtain firm numbers for permanent work stations with AT software from UW-Madison, MSU and Ohio State; and to clarify document conversion by other departments on the various campuses. It is also important to verify that main campus enrollment is the appropriate metric for comparing results between universities. Recommended Survey Revisions It would be helpful in the next survey to more broadly identify responsibility for accessibility services provided on campus. For example, it is unclear whether the reporting units have responsibility for all university locations or just the main campus. Also, some schools seem to have the function centralized, while others have it distributed according to whether it is a computer installation, counseling, or a service provided to students (such as document scanning). It may also be helpful to identify the type and nature of computer installations, i.e., whether they are located in separate labs, are flexible, which software they contain, etc., and whether document conversion is provided in a centralized or distributed fashion. More CIC schools should also be encouraged to participate, to more fully measure the effectiveness of services delivered to students. 6 Blackboard Accessibility Interest group http://cita.disability.uiuc.edu/collaborate/blackboard/ 7 Desire2Learn Accessibility Interest Group http://cita.disability.uiuc.edu/collaborate/desiretolearn/ 8 Sakai Accessibility Working Group http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/2ACC/Home Educational Technologies Submitted by: Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., Coordinator Information Technology Accessibility, Disability Resources and Educational Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Background CIC institutions use both commercial and open source LMS systems, and many campuses use both. There are some synergies that have been created within CIC institutions to work cooperatively with developers to improve accessibility. For commercial systems, this includes Blackboard6 and Desire2Learn systems7 accessibility interest groups, and the Sakai8 accessibility working group for open source systems. There are accessibility efforts related to Moodle, but it is not clear if anyone from CIC institutions contributes to Moodle access e . Desire to Learn (3): U Urbana/Champaign . Blackboard (2): University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign and Chicago Ca . Moodle (2): UW-Madison and University of Illinois – Urb . Sakai (2): University of Michigan and Participants S . Indiana University . Michigan State Univer . Ohio State University . University of Illinois--Chicago . University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign . University of Michigan State Unive 9 Voluntary Product Template Information http://www.access-star.org/ITI-VPAT-v1.3.html Results Assessment of learning system accessibility Most LMS systems claim to be accessible through the completion of a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT)9 used for Section 508 conformance claims. VPATs do not require detailed information on accessibility of the various features of a LMS and therefore tend to be unreliable as predictors of the actual accessibility of a product. Purchasing decision makers are typically satisfied with vendor claims of accessibility. Most institutions do some additional accessibility testing, but it is not clear how this impacts purchasing decisions or whether feedback is communicated to vendors. The survey did not ask about testing procedures, so this might be a good area to explorer in future surveys. Future surveys could collect information on how institutions conduct additional testing and how they use the results to improve accessibility of LMS systems. Institution Response Michigan State University Rely on accessibility claims of the company or organization, use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements University of Wisconsin-Madison Rely on accessibility claims of the company or organization, rely on information from user groups that support people with disabilities, use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements Ohio State Use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements University of Illinois at Chicago Use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Rely on information from user groups that support people with disabilities, use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements Indiana University Use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements University of Michigan Rely on information from user groups that support people with disabilities, use internal testing resources based on university accessibility requirements 10 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/sec504.index.htm 11 Content updated by M. Elledge, 3/12/09 Requirements for LMS accessibility There does not seem to be a consensus among CIC institutions that accessibility requirements apply to LMS. This may be due to a lack of understanding that Section 50410 or university policies apply to (LMS). Institution Response Michigan State University New accessibility policy will cover campus software applications; Section 508 and WCAG 1.011 University of Wisconsin-Madison Section 508 Ohio State Section 508 University of Illinois at Chicago Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act Requirements Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act Requirements Indiana University No requirements or policies University of Michigan Best effort adherence to University guidelines Responsibility for ascertaining LMS accessibility There does not seem to be a consistent or formal mechanism at any CIC institutions on how accessibility information of LMS systems is collected or used to improve the accessibility. Institution Campus Unit Role Michigan State University Usability and Accessibility Center Will perform accessibility evaluations of LMS systems (such as LON-CAPA) when hired University of Wisconsin- Madison Distributed Ohio State Web Accessibility Center Consultant University of Illinois at Chicago UIC Instructional Technology Lab, ACCC Computer Center Decision maker on purchase of LMS Illinois at Urbana- Champaign DRES & CITES EdTech Evaluation and testing Indiana University University Information Technology Services No formal responsibility; ad hoc testing as required or as the ATAC requests this type of testing for units involved in LMS systems. University of Michigan None 12 Will become requirement in future software purchasing decisions, Ibid. Influence of accessibility in LMS and instructional design tool purchasing and use There is not a consensus within CIC institutions on the importance of accessibility in making purchasing decisions or how the accessibility of an LMS should be determined. Elsewhere it appears that accessibility is becoming more important in purchasing decisions. For example, the California State University (CSU) system recently evaluated the accessibility of several LMS systems used in the CSU system and only two vendors (Angel and Moodle) passed. As a consequence, the CSU system is requiring systems that did not pass to be phased out in the next few years. Other commercial vendors, including Desire2Learn and Blackboard have now significantly increased their interest in accessibility due to being left off the approval list and have actually started working with people with disabilities to test their products. They are also actively trying to negotiate a new evaluation based on recent and proposed changes to their technology to improve accessibility. Without the CSU administration putting teeth into their accessibility requirements these companies would not have made the progress they have made to improve the accessibility of their products. Institution Response Ohio State Very important in purchasing decisions University of Illinois at Chicago Very important in purchasing decisions Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Important in purchasing decisions Michigan State University Somewhat important in purchasing decisions12 University of Wisconsin-Madison Somewhat important in purchasing decisions Indiana University Somewhat important in purchasing decisions University of Michigan Not a factor in purchasing decisions Accessibility in faculty and instructor training on creating accessible course content There does not seem to be a consensus on CIC institutions on the importance of training instructors on how to create and use electronic instructional materials. Only one institution includes accessibility in all training session and most institutions it is optional or only available in selected courses. The next step would be to start collecting information on what type of accessibility information is included in training and understanding how the training impacts instructor behavior in creating more accessible materials. Institution Response Illinois at Urbana-Champaign All instructor training includes information on campus accessibility requirements and techniques Michigan State University Most instructor training includes information on campus accessibility requirements and techniques Ohio State Most instructor training includes information on campus accessibility requirements and techniques University of Illinois at Chicago Instructors can optionally take courses on campus accessibility requirements and techniques Indiana University Instructors can optionally take courses on campus accessibility requirements and techniques University of Michigan Instructors can optionally take courses on campus accessibility requirements and techniques University of Wisconsin-Madison No information Responsibility for faculty and instructor training in accessibility Over half the CIC institutions responding have some unit on campus that provides training in creating accessible instructional materials. The next step is to learn how many instructors are receiving training on accessibility and use the accessibility techniques they learn as a part of creating their electronic course materials. Institution Campus Unit Responsibilities Michigan State University Libraries, Computing, & Technology Program (LCCTP) Provide workshops on computer applications that include sections on accessible design. University of Wisconsin-Madison Distributed Ohio State No information University of Illinois at Chicago ACCC Regular training is provided on accessibility Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DRES & CITES EdTech Indiana University Multiple units have a role in assisting faculty and instructors get information and training in accessibility. University of Michigan None 13 Content updated by M. Elledge, 3/12/09 Accessibility policies and instructional content Most campuses report they do not have a policy that requires instructors to create accessible instructional content. This is a major concern especially as online courses and instructional materials become more prevalent and instructors increase their use of multimedia and interactive instructional material increases. In distance education situations it is difficult to make the types of disability accommodations that can be done on campus and it is very difficult and often impossible to make interactive multimedia and electronic materials accessible in a timely way due to the time and resources it takes to retrofit accessibility into materials that we not designed with accessibility features. Institution Response Michigan State University Beginning May 2009, it will be highly recommended that course syllabi be accessible; course materials will gradually come under MSU’s new accessibility policy starting in May 200913 University of Wisconsin- Madison Yes. Same as for website accessibility Ohio State No, we do not have campus accessibility policies University of Illinois at Chicago No, we do not have campus accessibility policies Illinois at Urbana-Champaign No, we have campus accessibility practices but instructional content is not included Indiana University No, we have campus accessibility practices but instructional content is not included University of Michigan No, we have campus accessibility practices but instructional content is not included Responsibility for ensuring instructional content accessibility The lack of response to this question makes it impossible to generalize about who has responsibility for ensuring that instructional content is accessible at CIC schools. This is an area that will require additional follow-up. 14 Content updated by M. Elledge, 3/12/09 15 Illinois Functional Accessibility Evaluator http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu Institution Campus Unit Responsibilities Michigan State University Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities (RCPD), Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (I3) The RCPD, along with individual instructors, have responsibility for accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities on a case by case basis. The Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (I3) will have responsibility for managing the rollout of MSU’s new policy to courses and course materials.14 University of Wisconsin-Madison Distributed Ohio State No information University of Illinois at Chicago No information Illinois at Urbana- Champaign DRES & CITES EdTech Indiana University University Information Technology Services On an ad hoc request basis and on the initiative of the ATACs, web based interfaces for instructional content is assessed for accessibility. University of Michigan None Importance of strategies in improving the accessibility of instructional materials on your campus The following ranking was calculated from survey responses to identify the priorities of activities that would improve the accessibility of electronic instructional materials. Clearly the number one issue is helping instructors understand the accessibility of the materials that they create. At Illinois the development of Illinois Functional Accessibility Evaluator (FAE)15 had huge impact on helping web developers learn about the accessibility of their web sites and how to design them to be more accessible when they were updated or replaced by new web designs. The next most important item was examples of accessible designs using the technologies that instructors are using to create instructional content. This is a potential activity of the IT Accessibility and Usability group to collect accessible examples from CIC institutions and provide a web resource showcasing the accessible design. It should be noted that the lowest ranked item, training instructors on accessibility, is the primary approach most institutions are using in trying to improve the accessibility of instructional materials. 1. Providing feedback to instructors on the accessibility of the electronic instructional materials as they upload them to learning management systems (Ranking score 5.8) 2. Access to examples of accessible instructional materials using various technologies including, Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash, HTML, java and .NET technologies (Ranking score 4.8) 3. Providing feedback to instructors on the accessibility of the electronic instructional materials as they create them (Ranking score 4.4) 4. Providing information to administrators on the accessibility of electronic instructional materials currently used on campus (Ranking score 3.8) 5. Training instructional technology staff on creating accessible instructional materials (Ranking score 3.6) 6. Providing instructors with authoring tools that support accessible design by default (Ranking score 3.4) 7. Training instructors on how to create accessible instructional materials (Ranking score 2.2) Additional Comments Institution Comment Michigan State University No comments University of Wisconsin- Madison We survey students with disabilities about access barriers for all technology and learning resources ... and follow up to remedy problems ... because our campus has multiple colleges and schools, with no centralized resources or governing body ... the response of 'distributed' reflects that solutions may or may not exist ... Ohio State Responsibility for training instructors about accessibility is distributed across various staff who provide faculty training. University of Illinois at Chicago Providing resources for instructors on accessibility is a high priority this year. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign No comments Indiana University I and others I consulted found it difficult to rank order the item in the previous question. To us they all seemed equally important. University of Michigan Decentralized nature of University of Michigan makes mandating accessibility requirements very difficult. We typically use a best-effort approach to adhere to acknowledged best practices and guidelines, but these are not treated as policy requirements. Trends and Implications The awareness of the need for accessible instructional learning technologies seems to be growing. Vendor interest also seems to be tied to the importance placed on accessibility when universities make purchasing decisions. It would seem to follow that the more accessibility requirements are made during the time of purchase the more vendors will consider accessibility to be an important component of their products. It is not clear, however, the role accessibility has in purchasing decisions. It also seems that there is not an organized or systematic effort at most campuses to inform instructors of both the need to create and purchase accessible electronic materials for their courses. From the ranking question it seems measuring the accessibility of current instructional materials and feeding this information back to instructors and administrators is the highest priority. The accessibility information can be used in planning and measuring the success of efforts to improve the accessibility of instructional materials. Online Library Services Submitted by: Mary Beth Allen, Applied Health Sciences Librarian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Patty Bradley-Diehl, Web Administrator, Informatics & Computing Services, School of Public Health, University of Michigan Participants The Library Services Survey was completed by 8 persons with knowledge of library online services, representing 8 different CIC institutions: . Indiana University Bloomington (Library Associate Dean for Public Services) . Michigan State University (Systems Librarian) . Ohio State University (Program Director, Web Accessibility Center, on behalf of OSU Reference Libraries Liaison) . The Pennsylvania State University (Coordinator of Library Services for Persons with Disabilities) . University of Wisconsin-Madison (Director-General Library System) . University of Illinois-Chicago (Assistant University Librarian for Information Technology) . University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign (Library Web Technologies & Content Coordinator) . University of Michigan (Library Interface & User Testing Specialist) Results . Electronic Reserves . Online Resources for Learning Support . Online Catalog . Online Databases . Defined Accommodation Plans/Procedures Electronic Reserves University libraries provide online access to course reserve readings as a service to faculty and students. These electronic readings are available 24/7 and are heavily used throughout the semester. The survey sought to gauge whether electronic reserves had been evaluated for accessibility and whether they met campus accessibility guidelines. The majority of libraries either had not evaluated their e-reserve systems for accessibility, or had evaluated them and were aware that they did not meet accessibility guidelines. Online Resources for Learning Support University libraries provide a variety of online resources that are meant to support the library learning experience of students and faculty. Some of these include virtual reference services, real-time chat with a librarian, and online tutorials. The survey sought to determine whether these online services had been evaluated for accessibility and whether they met campus guidelines for accessibility. Half the libraries surveyed had evaluated library learning support resources for accessibility, but only one library reported that it met all university accessibility requirements; the other half said these resources had not been evaluated or that their campus did not have accessibility requirements for these resources. Online Catalog University libraries use online catalogs to provide access to their collections. Six of the eight libraries reported that their online catalogs had been evaluated for accessibility and met some accessibility guidelines. However, two libraries said their campuses did not have such guidelines. Online Databases University libraries use a variety of online bibliographic databases to allow easy searching of journal literature. The survey asked if these systems had been evaluated for accessibility and whether they met campus accessibility guidelines. More than half the libraries reported that some databases had been evaluated. One library reported that most of the databases evaluated did not meet any of the university accessibility requirements. Defined Accommodation Plans/Procedures All eight libraries reported that they provide assistance to people with disabilities in a number of important ways: help perform searches, retrieve material, provide accessible versions of print and other material, offer some adjustable workstations with assistive technologies. But only one library reported that it provides assistive technologies on most library public workstations. Trends and Implications Several of the respondents commented that although all types of accommodation might not be offered through the library, such accommodations are provided elsewhere on campus (through a disability services unit). They also noted that their libraries and universities are currently in the process of evaluating and improving the accessibility of what is offered electronically. Academic libraries are keenly aware of the need for continued assessment of use patterns and use of services; they routinely engage in assessment activity such as the Association of Research Libraries’ LibQUAL+. Further assessment of IT accessibility in libraries will function to strengthen libraries’ core mission to serve the needs of all users. The American Library Association’s ASCLA Division (Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies) has recently made available “Library Accessibility –What You Need to Know,” a toolkit series developed to help librarians in all types of libraries understand and manage access issues. These resources can serve as a starting point for CIC Libraries. In the end, everyone can benefit if more evaluation is done, more standards and guidelines are developed, and if vendors and developers are held to stricter standards. Recommended Survey Revisions Additional CIC Library contacts have been identified since the time this survey was administered, so for the next survey we expect more, if not all, CIC Libraries to participate. Policy and Governance Submitted by: Alice Anderson, Technology Accessibility Program, Division of Information Technology (DoIT), University of Wisconsin-Madison Participants . Michigan State University, Project Coordinator, Office for Inclusion & Intercultural Initiatives, . Ohio State University, ADA Coordinator, Provost's Office, . University of Michigan, Director, Services for Students with Disabilities (SSWD), . Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), Information Technology Manager, Information Technology Services . University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Technology Specialist/Chair of the UIC Web Accessibility Committee, Disability Resource Center . Indiana University, Manager Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers, University Information Services . University of Wisconsin-Madison, Technology Accessibility Program, Division of Information Technology Results ADA (The Americans with Disabilities Act) Compliance Office or Officer Each of the campuses responding has an ADA position, with varied locations and staffing configurations (see table below). The survey sought to gauge how ADA offices were configured and what issues were being addressed. For 2006-7 the issues included: . Physical environment accommodations (100%) . University policy issues (100%) . Web Accessibility (100%) . Other (public events, campus transportation & employment, ADA Website). Issues that are anticipated for the next two years are: . Reviewing ADA position and reporting structure, . Implementing a Policy on Web Accessibility, . Updating web accessibility policy AD54 to address new media, . Increasing awareness and compliance with the Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act . Reviewing ADA policy to comply with recent ADA amendments. CIC Campuses also have several committees specifically addressing or supporting web accessibility issues, again with varied locations (see table below). Policies Governing Web Accessibility Over 70%, of the CIC Institutions that responded have formal web or software accessibility 16 Accessibility policies for CIC Institutions are posted on the following Websites: University of Wisconsin-Madison , Ohio State University , Penn State , Michigan State University http://www.Webaccess.msu.edu/policies-and-guidelines/Web- accessibility-policy.html policies16 on their campuses. The survey sought to determine which CIC campuses have policies governing web accessibility, and what the policies cover. In addition to the 4 campus policies, the Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act (IITAA) requires Illinois agencies and universities to ensure that their web sites, systems, and other information technologies are accessible to people with disabilities – negating the need for CIC Illinois campuses to create a redundant policy. Campus ADA Compliance Office or Officer Committees Addressing Web Accessibility Issues Web Policy University of Wisconsin- Madison Director of Administrative Legal Services (no additional staff) Technology Accessibility Program, Division of Information Technology Department, and the Campus Accessibility Usability Committee Yes Michigan State Office for Inclusion & Intercultural Initiatives, 7 employees Web Accessibility Working Group - Policy Implementation Resource Team & Policy Communication Awareness Team Yes Ohio State ADA Coordinator Office, Office of Academic Affairs, 2.5 FTE professionals, 40 hours of Graduate Assistantship There are a number of advisory committees but units responsible for web pages and enterprise purchases are responsible to address the accessibility of their pages. Yes University of Michigan Office of Institutional Equity, Compliance Officer (only staff) Council for Disability Concerns No Penn State Director of Disability Services Web Accessibility and Standards Review Committee Yes University of Illinois at Chicago Students: Disability Resource Center; Faculty, Staff and other issues: The Office for Access and Equity Campus Web Accessibility Committee, Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities No Indiana University Office of Affirmative Action (6 persons work in the office). Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers No The campus policies cited cover the following areas: 17 The Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act (IITAA) requires Illinois agencies and universities to ensure that their web sites, systems, and other information technologies are accessible to people with disabilities http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32765. . Design and development of websites at the university (100%), . Design and development of websites by outside vendors for the university (100%), . Evaluation of websites designed and developed at the university (50%), . Design and development of software at the university (25%), . Design and development of software by outside vendors for the university (25%), . Purchase of software from outside vendors (25%), . Enforcement mechanism (which may or may not be utilized). Other CIC initiatives supporting web accessibility . At UW-Madison there are a variety of training opportunities, including one-on-one consults to review websites for compliance, an on-line self-paced resource “Web Accessibility 101 Policy, Standards and Design Techniques” http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/online-course/index.htm, and a series of videos addressing assistive technology http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/video/. . Michigan State policy covering web pages used to conduct core University business and academic activities has been introduced, with an effective date of May 15, 2009, for all new and redesigned web pages. Remediation plans for legacy pages are to be developed by the same date. . Penn State will update their policy to address accessibility of new media and remove exclusions from the policy, especially the learning management system. Campuses that currently do not have a campus policy governing web accessibility are also engaged in a variety of activities that support web accessibility: . The UIC Campus will develop and implement procedures to comply with the Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act17. There will be a need to determine if policy is necessary due to the IITAA being the "de facto" policy for the State of Illinois State Universities. The web site, http://accessweb.uic.edu, is provided along with training. The UIC Web Accessibility Committee will determine further policy and governance. We have seen significant and steady improvements in accessibility, judged by reductions in errors observed by scanning. We still have much work to bring sites to compliance. . Indiana University is hopeful that a web accessibility policy will be put in place along with guidelines, Web accessibility courses and supported validation resources. There is a web accessibility testing service through the Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers. Trends and Implications While CIC campuses have ADA officers and policies requiring web sites to be accessible to people with disabilities, it is not clear, if either the ADA positions or the policies are the motivating force behind creating accessible web sites or if the presence of either has increased the quantity of accessible sites. It is difficult to monitor the number of web sites on each campus overall, much less the degree to which they are or are not accessible to people with disabilities. 18 “University Web Accessibility Policies: A Bridge Not Quite Far Enough http://www.Webaim.org/articles/policies/policies_pilot/ 19 WAVE is a free Web accessibility evaluation tool provided by WebAIM. It is used to aid humans in the Web accessibility evaluation process http://wave.Webaim.org/. WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind), one of the leading providers of web accessibility expertise internationally, found that campus web accessibility policies generally fall short of achieving their purpose.18 Their study found accessibility errors in 80% of the university home pages when evaluated by WAVE 3.0, an online web accessibility evaluation tool.19 Errors ranged from minor, such as forgetting to add null alt text to images that do not contain important content to more serious errors, such as alt text missing for important images or labels missing for input fields. This A/U survey did not ask if the Campus home page was compliant with the campus policy, or if complaints were received about inaccessible sites – at offices for Disability Services, ADA, Equity and Diversity, or other offices that may receive complaints regarding web access. As the CIC IT A/U group encourages work to make the web in higher education more accessible, it will be necessary to continue research that assesses progress being made, compliance with policies, and overall gains in improving web accessibility. Recommended Survey Revisions Combine “Accessibility Design, Evaluation, and Training” Survey with “Policy & Governance” Survey to better understand how a web accessibility policy impacts the overall campus web accessibility when combined with training, monitoring and evaluation. Measure number of complaints on campus for web accessibility issues identifying if they are about web pages, web-based courseware, multi-media or applications. Use the ‘Functional Accessibility Evaluator’ developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, the WAVE tool, and manual evaluation techniques to gather baseline data for each home page. With this baseline data, identify which policies, training and staffing is in place and recommend best practices which can be made available as a reference for developers in the CIC. Website Accessibility Design, Evaluation, and Training Submitted by: Kenneth Petri, Program Director, OSU Web Accessibility Center, Ohio State University Participants Eight of 11 CIC campuses participated: . Michigan State University (Assistant Director, Usability and Accessibility Center) . Penn State (Information Technology Manager) . University of Illinois at Chicago (Assistive Technology Specialist, Disability Resource Center) . The Ohio State University (Program Director, Web Accessibility Center) . University of Michigan (ADA Coordinator, Institutional Equity, and Web Administrator, School of Public Health) . University of Wisconsin at Madison (Technology Accessibility Program Director, Division of Information Technology) . Indiana University (Manager, Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers, University Information Technology Services) . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Campus Accessibility Liaison, Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services). Results of Survey The survey covered five areas related to website accessibility design, evaluation, and training: . How much of web design on campuses is done in-house or outsourced and how much design effort is centralized on campus. . What campuses had policies addressing web accessibility and what aspects of web accessibility are covered in the policies (HTML, PDF, Flash, etc.). . Whether or not there was any automated checking of website accessibility on campuses, how was website accessibility monitored, and what tools are used for automated desktop and browser-based evaluation. . What is the extent of web accessibility training for campus personnel and what technologies are covered in training. . How many staff positions are dedicated to web accessibility. Web Design: In-House or Outsourced Centralization of web design can help meet accessibility requirements by ensuring uniformity in design and implementation. The fact that much of the design and implementation work at the university is performed in-house, rather than outsourced, provides an opportunity for development of internal, university-level standards, templates, and “best practices” to be developed, encouraged, and promulgated. Less than 35% of the campuses reported that web design and administration is performed at the college or departmental level. More than half reported a “mixed” management and development model, dependant on currently available unit (college or departmental) resources. More than 50% of campuses reported that most (at least 80%) of development is done in house (not contracted outside of department). Only one campus reported that 40-60% of development was handled by outside contractors. Web Accessibility Policies A well-written and supported web accessibility policy, especially one that was developed jointly and has buy-in from a range of technical and administrative units on the campus, can be a powerful tool in promoting and ensuring web accessibility. Five of eight campuses have a formal accessibility policy and one other will be in place by January 2009. Three campuses have no policy or only an informal recommendation of an accessibility standard. Thus, of reporting campuses, 67% either have or shortly will be instituting a formal web accessibility standard or policy. All of the campus policies reference or are based on Federal 508 or WCAG 1.0 or a combination, with the exception of Illinois, whose universities are required to follow the Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act. All of the current policies cover HTML standards. Half cover Flash and PDF accessibility, and 67% cover video accessibility. Only one policy covers accessibility of desktop software. Half of the policies require synchronized captioning of video or transcripts of audio on request. One- third of policies require video or audio to have captions or transcripts if used for teaching, administrative purposes, or if available to the public. Web Accessibility Monitoring, Evaluation, and Remediation One way of judging the effectiveness of a web accessibility policy or set of development standards is through monitoring of web resources. Often technologies that “spider” web resources and generate automated reports are not fine-grained or nuanced enough to accurately portray the accessibility of a web site. However, such tools can give a basic picture of levels of compliance, so long as they can be adjusted to compensate for the particulars of a campus’s web accessibility policy. Monitoring can also take the form of manual evaluation of high-traffic/high- use site or resources. On-demand evaluation is less effective in guaranteeing wide compliance but can help foster a campus ethic of compliance and can be effective as a training tool. Ideally, some combination of monitoring and manual evaluation should be in place. More than 60% of campuses have no coordinated monitoring of web accessibility compliance. Developers are assumed to be following requirements unless a violation is reported. Two campuses (Penn State and Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) perform independent accessibility audits. Illinois at Chicago runs audits of top trafficked sites. Ohio State performs evaluations on demand. Three of six responding campuses use the Illinois Functional Accessibility Evaluator for audits or minimally recommend FAE. Two campuses use UsableNet’s Lift Machine for monitoring web site accessibility (Penn State and Illinois, Urbana-Champaign). The Illinois schools also use FAE, as does OSU and Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin also uses Web Doctor consulting. Wisconsin appears to be the only campus that contracts out for some web accessibility evaluation. There is minimal support for desktop web accessibility checking software: only three campuses have such support. However most of the campuses promote some form of browser- based accessibility checking software—AIS toolbar in IE or various Firefox add-ons. Collaboration in remediating current web technologies is another area where campus web accessibility personnel can contribute to overall enterprise accessibility. Collaboration can occur through informal or formal partnerships with a vendor. And it can also occur through unit-to-unit efforts, in which personnel knowledgeable about accessibility improve the accessibility of purchased or open-source software. By far the most effort in improving technology accessibility has been directed at Learning Management and Portal systems, with Content Management, Library database, and webmail systems close behind. Half of campuses have addressed dynamic applications (DHTML or AJAX applications). There has been limited effort in improving accessibility in captioning, conferencing, and social networking systems. Web Accessibility Training One of the most obvious ways to introduce campus web designers and content providers to accessibility is through training or introducing web accessibility into mainstream web development offerings. Only one campus (Penn State) states that web accessibility is part of all mainstream web development training. All remaining campuses state that most or some of training courses include an accessibility component. Three campuses teach their web accessibility policy as a separate course. All of the campuses that teach web accessibility teach accessible HTML, and all but one teaches PDF accessibility. Only one teaches Flash accessibility. Around 50% of campuses teach how to create accessible office/business communications documents. Half have trainings in creating accessible content for courses. It is not clear what percentage of this training is directed at instructors. Dedicated Web Accessibility Staff Industry recognizes web accessibility as a field in itself, and there are many independent consultancies specializing in web accessibility. Some university IT and disability related units have hired personnel to specialize in the area as an effective means for promoting accessible design and policy compliance. Only one campus (UIUC) has more than 3 FTEs dedicating over 50% of their time to accessibility. Over one-third of campuses have no staff spending more than half their time; the remaining campuses have up to two FTEs spending 50% of time on accessibility. Trends and Implications Design and implementation of administrative web resources tend to be decentralized, handled at the department or unit level. And, currently, most design and implementation takes place in- house, instead of through outside contracting. Many campuses have web accessibility policies in place or are moving toward them. And most of these policies in some way reference state, national, or international standards. The policies primarily cover HTML/CSS and scripting, and most have some requirements for synchronized captioning. Policies refer less frequently to other forms of web publication—PDF, business documents (presentations, etc.), and Flash or other non-HTML web-delivered interactive content. Less than half of campuses coordinate web site accessibility monitoring, though most promote monitoring and evaluation by recommending various tools to developers. Many campuses have also targeted specific enterprise-wide technologies to improve accessibility. All campuses report that there is some form of web accessibility training, but there seems to be less integration of web accessibility into mainstream web development courses. Though HTML and PDF accessibility is taught widely, other technologies, especially Flash, are not covered as often. Many campuses teach accessibility in terms of accessible course content. Finally, across the responding campuses, it is clear human resources dedicated to web accessibility are limited, with only one campus reporting that it is able to dedicate three or more staff at more than 50% time. Some tentative implications: The results provide a picture of campuses where there is definite concern for and action on accessibility. However, it also seems in general that campuses do not have adequate resources for monitoring web space, and there seems to be little dedicated staffing, especially considering the size of responding campuses. There is not enough information or detail in the surveys to imply that increases in staffing or more formal means or collaboration on monitoring and evaluation would be effective. But it is clear that there is a lack of resources on both of these fronts. Recommended Survey Revisions . Revise parts of the survey, especially responses. Some respondents mentioned that they felt constrained by the phrasing of the questions or choices available, wanting to respond “none of the above.” . The survey lacks a question on how policy is enforced, which may be appropriate for the Policy and Governance section. It may be useful to gauge what are the perceived and/or real barriers to implementation and/or enforcement of policy and to determine what units on campus issue the policy. . The survey lacks questions that explore the web accessibility policies. Though respondents could submit whether their policy was based on a state, national, or international standard, it is not clear whether or not the policies contain specific recommendations or only refer to external documents. It might also be appropriate to provide URLs to the various policies. . More detail on how monitoring and evaluation takes place might suggest some best practices for this very difficult problem. How is feedback on results delivered, and what weight do the results have in motivating remediation? What campuses, if any, incorporate accessibility evaluation into unit reporting requirements? . Most campuses report some work to improve the accessibility of enterprise-wide web applications (LMS’s, etc.). How does this work happen? Through collaboration with vendors? Through local changes to the software? Though work to deploy applications accessibly, rather than accepting default deployments? . Questions on training might probe deeper into who are the intended and actual audiences—administrators? instructors? designers? students? Is it possible to get a sense of numbers? What are the course titles or specific subject areas of mainstream web development courses in which web accessibility is integrated, and is it thoroughly integrated or taught as a separate unit? Does training penetrate those units that do large- scale development, for example, campus marketing, human resources, Registrar’s, Student Affairs, and Information Technology office units? . The question on staffing needs to be finer grained. The question asks the number of FTE’s who can spend more than 50% of time on accessibility. How many full-time staff are there? What campuses entities are they affiliated with or report to—Disability Services? IT? How are these staff supported—funding? locations?