1. Accessing Higher Ground 2016
Evaluating Electronic and Information Technology for University Procurement
James e. Jackson EIT Accessibility Coordinator Michigan State University
11/14/2016
Accessing Higher Ground 2016

2. Agenda Process Evaluating EIT Legal Expectations
Overview of the Standards
Building Processes
Prioritization
Tips for Talking with Vendors
How to Evaluate Accessibility Documentation (e.g., VPATs)
Accessibility problems anyone can Identify
Introduction to Assistive Technology

3. Feel Free to Interrupt!

4. Questions?

5. Why Evaluate EIT Purchases?

6. Settlement Agreements
Penn State University
University of Montana
Youngstown State University
Miami University (October 17)
Many more Reference Third Party Apps and Content

7. EDUCAUSE IT Accessibility Risk Statements
Risk Statement 8: Failure to implement a procedure to ensure information obtained, provided, or developed by third parties is accessible.
Risk Statement 9: Failure to implement a procedure, which ensures procured EIT is accessible, such as including accessibility requirements in RFPs and contractual language.

8. Added Benefits
Many EIT purchases impact large numbers of students, faculty, staff, and the general public
Because contracts can last for years, a purchasing decision now can have long term impacts on accessibility
It is harder for universities to remediate third party content and applications after the fact
Raises awareness, and builds processes across the university

9. Questions?

10. Specific Requirements
Establish Standards
Typically WCAG 2.0 AA and Section 508
Include Accessibility in your Procurement Terms
You must choose the most accessible alternative
Provide Alternative EIT and Access

11. Establish Standards Standards for Web EIT Standards for Non-Web EIT
Typically WCAG 2.0 AA
Standards for Non-Web EIT
Typically Section 508
Miami University (October 17)
Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

12. Challenges Things are purchased in lots of different ways
Low accessibility of available options
Need to verify vendor’s claims
Many different standards
University has critical business needs

13. Engage Accessibility at Multiple Points of the Procurement Process
Procurement Terms
Requires WCAG 2.0
Creates awareness with the vendor
Initial Screening
Collect information and documentation
Prioritize by Risk
Accessibility Evaluation
Evaluate vendor claims
Collect additional information
Get changes made
Alternative Access
Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan (EEAAP)
Accessibility Statements
Documentation
Accountability Structures
EIT Accessibility Acknowledgement Form
Channels for responding to problems

14. Procurement Terms Clearly defines EIT and Accessibility
Requires the seller to warrant that their product meets accessibility standards
Requires seller to provide evidence of accessibility on request
Used WCAG 2.0 for Web EIT and Section 508 for Non-Web EIT
If product is inaccessible provide a roadmap
Seller agrees to promptly respond to any complaint

15. Initial Screening
At Michigan State every EIT product is screened by a purchasing agent
Purchasing agents collect basic information from both the vendors and the business owners
What is the purpose of the product?
Who will be using it?
Students, Faculty, Staff the General Public
Accessibility documentation, including VPATS
Purchasing Agents make an initial risk assessment

16. Risk Assessment Rubric
Low Risk
High Risk
Limited audience / user base
For administrative/research use by limited number of employees
Not required for course work (low degree of educational opportunities/benefits through technology)
There are easily identifiable alternatives that provide an equally effective program/service in an equally integrated manner to individuals with disabilities
For employees only
No commercially available accessible product
Large audience / user base consisting of students
Required for course work
High degree of educational opportunities/benefits through technology
There is no easily identifiable alternative that provides an equally effective, equally integrated program/service in an equally integrated manner to individuals with disabilities
There is a commercially available accessible alternative

17. Risk Assessment
If low or medium risk, approve the purchase and send the department an EIT Accessibility Acknowledgement
If high risk, forward to the Accessibility Review Committee (ARC) and notify unit that ARC will be conducting an assessment.
If potentially high risk product and the level of accessibility is unknown, forward to the ARC and notify unit that ARC will be conducting an assessment.

18. Prioritization Prioritization based on risk
We focus on risk that an person with a disability will be impacted, not just risk of litigation (though these are usually one in the same)
Prioritization allows us to focus limited resources
Prioritizing Remediation of Web Accessibility Issues by Karl Groves

19. Questions?

20. Limited Accessibility Evaluation
See redacted report handout for an example
For High Risk purchases we conduct a hands on accessibility evaluation
This allows us to verify the vendors claims, as well as better understand the accessibility problems inherent in the technology
Evaluation allows us to:
Get changes made from the vendor
Provide better guidance to the business owner

21. Severity Rating
Blocker: Prevents access to core processes or many secondary processes; causes harm or significant discomfort
Critical: Prevents access to some secondary process; makes it difficult to access core processes or many secondary processes
Major: Makes it inconvenient to access core processes or many secondary processes
Minor: Makes it inconvenient to access isolated processes
Lesser: Minor usability problem; usability observation

22. Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan (EEAAP)
If it is not possible to purchase technology that is accessible without fundamentally altering the fundamental purpose of the service, universities can create EEAAPs
What the and its purpose are
What users may be affected (if known)
How equally effective access will be provided
Who is responsible for carrying out the plan

23. Accessibility Statements
Direct users towards alternative access
Points users to our Report Inaccessible Digital Content form
Points users to the Office of Institutional Equity

24. Accountability Structures
EIT Accessibility Acknowledgement form
Signer commits to accommodating users with disabilities
Is required for all EIT Purchases
Creates a channel for us to follow up on if there is a problem
Report Inaccessible Digital Content form
Creates a fallback for any content or service
Accessibility Review Committee

25. Break

26. How to Evaluate EIT Purchases

27. Agenda Tips for Engaging with Vendors How to Assess a VPAT
Accessibility Inspection
Keyboard
Use of Color
Color Contrast
Introduction to inspecting content with Screen Readers

28. Tips for Talking with Vendors
Watch out for Demos
If they demo screen reader accessibility, always ask them to do so with a keyboard
Ask about process
Do they have a roadmap?
Do they include Accessibility in their quality assurance practices?
What standards are their developers familiar with?
How do they respond to accessibility complaints?

29. Accessibility Documentation

30. VPATs
Why read VPATs?
VPATs are an opportunity for vendors to make a good faith effort at disclosing accessibility problems
VPATs can give you a glimpse into whether or not the vendor understands accessibility
VPATs provide details about a products accessibility which can be verified

31. VPATs and WCAG 2.0
Most but not all WCAG 2.0 AA Criteria are at least partially covered (as long as the appropriate sections are filled out)
The United States Access Board has provided a Comparison table between WCAG 2.0 and 508

32. Things to check first
Does the VPAT cover the portion of the product you are interested in?
Is the VPAT up-to-date?

33. What Sections are filled out?
Software applications and operating systems
Native software (e.g., Microsoft word, mobile applications, etc.)
Ideally websites, especially web applications
See Google’s VPAT for Gmail as an example
Allows the VPAT to cover more of WCAG
Web-based intranet and internet information and applications
Websites
Section Self-Contained, Closed Products
Most applications of Digital Signage, classroom podium controls etc.

34. Does the Vendor use Industry standard language?
While its not required, most well done VPATs follow industry standard language in the Supporting Features column
Supports: The Product meets the criterion
Supports with Exceptions: The product does not completely meet the criterion, but at least provides some level of support
Supports with Equivalent Facilitation: The product does not comply with the criterion, but provides an alternative means of access for the same functionality
Does not Support: The product does not meet the criterion
Not Applicable: The criterion is not applicable to the product

35. What Level of Detail is Provided?
Should provide enough detail for you to understand the scope and severity of the problems
Mentioning how criteria are met can be useful and appropriate, but a VPAT should not read like a sales pitch
Remember that the VPAT is meant to be a good faith effort at disclosing problems

36. VPAT Recap What to watch out for
VPATs that are out of date or do not cover the whole product
VPATs that are glowing, without giving details
VPATs that do not provide actionable information
VPATs that read like marketing material
VPATs that do not use industry standard language or practices

37. Keyboard Accessibility

38. Accessible University

39. Keyboard Operability
Requirement: All interactive elements need to be reached and operable with a keyboard alone
Applicable Standards:
WCAG Keyboard (Level A)
Section (a)
User Groups: Screen reader users, users with low vision, and users with dexterity impairments limiting their use of a mouse

40. Keyboard Inspection Tips
Some elements, such as radio buttons, are reached with the arrow keys instead of tab
When inspecting native applications, remember that the Alt key is used to access menus

41. Focus Visible
Requirement: There needs to be a visible indicator of keyboard focus
Applicable Standards:
WCAG Focus Visible (Level AA)
Section (c)
User Groups: Users with low vision, users with dexterity impairments limiting their use of a mouse, users with cognitive disabilities

42. Focus Visible
From Webaim.org

43. Use of Color
Requirement: Color should not be the only means of communicating meaning
Applicable Standards:
WCAG Use of Color (Level A)
Section (i) and .22(c)
User Groups: Users with low vision or color blindness

44. Use of Color
From We are Colorblind

45. Color Contrast
Requirement: Text must have sufficient contrast with its background
Applicable Standards:
WCAG Contrast (Minimum) (Level AA)
User Groups: Users with low vision or color blindness

46. Using the Colour Contrast Analyser

47. Screen Reader Demo

48. Why NVDA? NVDA is one of the most commonly used screen readers
Used by 41% of respondents to WebAim’s most recent Screen Reader user survey
NVDA is free
NVDA is relatively easy to inspect with compared to JAWS
From WebAim.org Screen Reader User Survey #6

49. Screen Reader Tips Use the Ctrl key to silence the screen reader
Up and Down arrow keys move from one content item to the next
On websites and some other platforms, H key moves to the next heading
Shift + H moves to the previous heading

50. Try it on your website Screen Reader Resources
Keyboard Shortcuts for NVDA
Keyboard Shortcuts for JAWS
Keyboard Shortcuts for VoiceOver

51. Accessing Higher Ground 2016
Contact Me
James e. Jackson EIT Accessibility Coordinator Michigan State University
Agreement Icon Create By Chameleon Design from the Noun Project
QUESTION ANSWER Icon Create By iconsphere from the Noun Project
Audit Icon Create By Milky - Digital innovation from the Noun Project
Accessibility Create By Alfonso Melolonta Urbán from the Noun Project
hierarchy Icon Create By Danil Polshin from the Noun Project
11/14/2016
Accessing Higher Ground 2016