1. IT Accessibility in Procurement: The Big 10's Shared Approach
Link to slides:

2. Presenters Bill Welsh, Rutgers University
Charlie Collick, Rutgers University
Nate Evans, Michigan State University
Introduction, presenters introduce themselves

3. Topics ITAG Background, Strategic Plan and Mission
The Procurement Initiative and Challenge
Goals: Progress & Barriers for Procurement
Goal 1 – Education & Marketing
Goal 2 – Solicitation Requirements
Goal 3 – Standardized Evaluation
Goal 4 – Sharing information across the Big 10
Looking Ahead
Questions
Nate – Topics we’ll be presenting with breakout session specific to goals at the end of the presentation

4. Information Technology Accessibility Group (ITAG)
Formed in 2008 as an informal group within the CIC.
Historically, a project based group.
Officially sponsored by the CIOs in 2011.
Originally, very IT focused members. Evolved into current representation from various departments.
Moved more recently toward shared tools, resources, and trainings.

5. ITAG Charter: Purposes and Objectives for ITAG:
Share concerns, awareness, and information regarding IT Accessibility
Share effective practices
Recommend joint projects and develop new practices, tools, and technologies
Advance collaborative projects and share costs and resources.

6. Procurement Project Background
Collaboration Between Information Technology Accessibility Group (ITAG) and Purchasing Directors
ITAG Initiation (Spring 2015) and Purchasing Director Commitment shortly thereafter
Monthly calls, with off-cycle subgroups (Goals)
Challenge: widely varying standards leave vendors confused about what standards they should meet.
Background of the BTAA ITAG x Purchasing initiative

7. Purchasing Group Goals
Goal 1 – Education & Marketing
Goal 2 – Solicitation Requirements
Goal 3 – Standardized Evaluation
Goal 4 – Work with vendors to improve accessibility & share information across the Big 10
*Last week we ended this project. We are rescoping some goals, and moving others to operational status.

8. Goal 1: Education & Marketing
Write accessibility “cookbook” for vendors
Publish: Vendor Guide to Accessibility (What, Why, How)

9. Vendor Guide to Accessibility
Vendor Guide to Web Accessibility for Higher Education Customers

10. Cookbook Contents Benefits of Accessibility
Legal obligations of colleges and universities
Compatibility with assistive technologies
Quality assurance process
Procurement resources
Communicating requirements
Documentation

11. Educating University Staff
What is accessibility?
Buy in from the bottom to the top
More than just compliance
Ask more of our vendors

12. Goal 1: Education & Marketing
Write accessibility “cookbook” for vendors
Publish: Vendor Guide to Accessibility (What, Why, How)
Elicit conversations
Moving to operational status, next steps:
Publish audience-specific cookbook extracts.
Develop Purchasing x IT Accessibility webpages on BTAA.
Develop committee and process to handle ongoing maintenance and enhancements: Content updates, review and revisions.

13. Goal 2: Solicitation Requirements
Common purpose, definitions, and resources
Assessment Questionnaire (Scoping)

14. Assessment questionnaire
RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondents must provide responses to the following Five (5) vendor assessment questions:
Provide a name and contact information (address, phone number, and address) for the representative dedicated to addressing accessibility issues. This representative should be knowledgeable of Technical Standards adopted at the University and be able to coordinate accessibility support for the EIT. This representative should not be the same individual as a sales representative.
Provide a copy of a thorough and accurate Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT 2.1 Preferred) created based on the Technical Standards for the EIT proposed. The VPAT should describe the proposed version of the product.
Describe the steps that will be taken when the University submits a request to address an accessibility concern including how a mutually agreeable timeline to address the concern will be obtained.
Describe your process for on-going testing, maintenance, and remediation of the EIT’s accessibility.
Provide a copy of accessibility reviews completed on the proposed EIT and identify whether future accessibility reviews will be shared with the University throughout the contract term.

15. Assessment questionnaire, questions 3-5
RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondents must provide responses to the following Five (5) vendor assessment questions:
Provide a name and contact information (address, phone number, and address) for the representative dedicated to addressing accessibility issues. This representative should be knowledgeable of Technical Standards adopted at the University and be able to coordinate accessibility support for the EIT. This representative should not be the same individual as a sales representative.
Provide a copy of a thorough and accurate Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT 2.1 Preferred) created based on the Technical Standards for the EIT proposed. The VPAT should describe the proposed version of the product.
Describe the steps that will be taken when the University submits a request to address an accessibility concern including how a mutually agreeable timeline to address the concern will be obtained.
Describe your process for on-going testing, maintenance, and remediation of the EIT’s accessibility.
Provide a copy of accessibility reviews completed on the proposed EIT and identify whether future accessibility reviews will be shared with the University throughout the contract term.

16. Goal 2: Solicitation Requirements
Common purpose, definitions, and resources
Assessment Questionnaire (Scoping)
Minimal Functional Requirements (Self- Assessed)

17. Minimum functional requirements
12 minimal functional requirements include:
Text Alternatives, Captions and Audio Descriptions, Adaptable, Perceivable, Keyboard Support, Enough time, Seizures, Navigable, Readable (Web-based applications only), Predictable, Input Assistance, Robustness and Compatibility

18. Goal 2: Solicitation Requirements
Common purpose, definitions, and resources
Assessment Questionnaire (Scoping)
Minimal Functional Requirements (Self-Assessed)
Vendor Recommendation of Equally Effective Alternate Access
FAQs
Next steps: Publish requirements and FAQs to BTAA website.

19. Goal 3: Standardized Evaluation Process
The challenge: BTAA members differ widely in:
Accessibility knowledge and resources
Compliance targets
Evaluation methods employed
Evaluation tools used
Some members have strict compliance targets due to OCR complaint settlement terms.
Differences result in members unable to trust evaluation results from other schools and no ability to leverage results in procurement negotiations.
Vendors use differences against us

20. Goal 3: Standardized Evaluation Process
Identify standard tools/practices for testing accessibility
Establish best practices to determine compliance, and share testing results
Create training to evaluate accessibility requirements and evaluations.
Status: On-hold, rescoping.
Discovery with UCOP (Prioritization)
Recommend that this goal be re-scoped into new project

21. Goal 3: The Problem Members differ widely in:
Accessibility knowledge and resources
Compliance targets
Evaluation methods employed
Evaluation tools used

22. University of California Prioritization Model

23. Goal 4:Leverage Big 10 to Work with Vendors to Improve Accessibility & Sharing of Information
Sharing of evaluations created in Goal 3
Identify Vendors to Engage in Big 10 Negotiations to Address Accessibility
The Big 10 Libraries Model

24. Big 10 Libraries e-Resource Accessibility
E-Resource Testing
The Big Ten Academic Alliance Libraries fund third-party accessibility evaluations for select vendor e-resources based upon recommendations from the member libraries and the platforms that the majority of the consortium owns or is considering for purchase. Evaluations, along with any responses provided by vendors, are below. The program provides vendors with a report and the opportunity to improve the accessibility of their products while giving members of the library community information about the accessibility of specific library e-resources. Vendors may supply responses to the test results by contacting the Big Ten Academic Alliance.
More information on BTAA Libraries e-Resource Accessibility is available on the BTAA website:
Each institutions pays in $1000. 
Around 3 hours, 8-10 pages. 16 Reviews completed. 
2 consultant agencies doing the evaluations
Publicly available, with a public response offered.
Intended for consortia purchases, driven by subgroup
Vendors are "ecstatic" overall, and encouraged to make changes to their software.
"We are not making buying decisions based on these reports." Doing this for the greater good. Transparency for institutions, and provides free reviews for vendors that helps them focus their efforts. 
Questions
Can we expand this outside of the BTAA?
How do we handle out-of-date evaluations and/or re-evaluations?

25. ITAG Strategic Planning
Purpose: To be intentional and strategic about the work we do together in a rapidly maturing field.
Process: Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results (SOAR)
Mission: Fostering a cultural change of accessibility within the BTAA
Vision: Supporting the full range of human capability is everyone’s everyday responsibility in our institutions
Strategic planning outcomes (goal and objectives) and strategies to achieve them

26. Discussion, Questions & Thank You

27. Contact Information
Bill Welsh:
Charlie Collick:
Nate Evans:

28. Image of the 14 institutions that make up the BTAA.

29. Please fill out the evaluation for this session at: