The California State Universitys Accessible Technology Initiative

1
The California State Universitys Accessible
Technology Initiative
California Association for Postsecondary
Education and Disability Conference Ventura,
California October 18, 2007
2
Todays Presentation

• ATI Project Overview Deborah Kaplan, Director,
  Accessible Technology Initiative, CSU Office of
  the Chancellor
• Web Accessibility Wayne Dick, Professor and
  Chair of Computer Science Engineering, CSULB
  and Academic Technology Accessibility
  Coordinator, Accessible Technology Initiative
• Instructional Materials Accessibility and CSU
  Center for Accessible Media Mark Turner,
  Director, CAM, CSU Office of the Chancellor
• Procurement Deborah Kaplan, Director, Accessible
  Technology Initiative, CSU Office of the
  Chancellor
• Licensing Digital Collections Lisa Moske,
  Director, Systemwide Electronic Information
  Resources, CSU Office of the Chancellor

3
Accessible Technology Initiative
(ATI)http//www.calstate.edu/accessibility/

• Reflects CSU commitment to provide equal access
  to information resources and technologies to
  individuals with disabilities.
• "It is the policy of the CSU to make information
  technology resources and services accessible to
  all CSU students, faculty, staff and the general
  public regardless of disability. CSU Executive
  Order 926
• http//www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-926.html
• Goals
• Systemic change
• Institutionalize accessibility
• Change CSU culture

4
Case for Action
5
ATI Beyond Legal Mandates

• Vision To create a culture of access for an
  inclusive learning and working environment.
• Mission To help CSU campuses in carrying out CSU
  policy as articulated EO926 by developing
  guidelines, implementation strategies, tools and
  resources.
• Principle To apply universal design, an approach
  to the design of products and services to be
  usable by the greatest number of people including
  individuals with disabilities.
• Strategy To stimulate collaboration to effect
  changes that will ultimately benefit all.

6
The CSU System

• 23 diverse campuses
• CSU Maritime 860 FTE
• CSU Fullerton 36,000 FTE
• 440,000 students
• 40,000 faculty and staff
• Largest university system in the nation
• How do you institutionalize accessibility in
  this context?

7
ATI Three Implementation Priorities

8
Project Plan

• Phased-in implementation plan with specific
  milestones for each of the three priorities
• Six-year work plan with full compliance reached
  by 2012
• Accountability via end of year reports
• First year emphasis campus assessment, planning
  and training
• Project Plan defined in Coded Memo AA 2007-04
• http//www.calstate.edu/ACADAFF/CodedMemos/AA-2007
  -04.pdf

9
Campus Project Structure
10
Communication, Coordination and Collaboration
Vehicles of communication Communities of
Practice (CoP) teleconferences, Listservs,
Blackboard site for internal communication, ATI
website for external facing info
11
Web Priority

• Retrofit to Law
• Build to Best Practice
• By Wayne Dick, Professor and Chair of Computer
  Science Engineering, CSULB and Academic
  Technology Accessibility Coordinator

12
The Scope

• 23 Campuses
• 92 Administrative Divisions
• 160 Colleges
• 1100 Academic Departments
• 900 Administrative Units
• 900 Auxiliary Organizations
• 440,000 Students and Employees
• Every one a potential website owner and/or lawsuit

13
Triage PrinciplesUse an architectural barrier
modelCareful planning, Continuous Progress,
Prioritized Remediation

• Obey the law Electronic and Information
  Technology Section 508Anti-discrimination
  Section 504ADA Title II
• Retrofit vital sites to law no exceptions
• Build new sites to the newest best practice
• Delay non-critical sites near life cycles end
• Replace Accommodation with Accessibility

14
Timeline of Repair

• FY 2006-07 ............Planning
• Establish the baselines
• Build the project plans
• FY 2007-08 ............Begin Repair
• Fix vital sites
• Evaluate Progress and Need
• Refine the project plans
• FY 2008-09 .Heavy Lifting
• Fix remaining essential sites
• Evaluate Progress and Need
• Refine the project plans
• FY 2009-2010 .Institutionalize
• Complete the backlog from 2006-07
• Audit the project results and report
• FY 2012.. Complete

15
What Does Fix Mean

• Retrofit or replace all sites under CSU or campus
  control
• Negotiate with vendors to retrofit or replace
  non-compliant sites the CSU or campuses do not
  control
• Establish timelines for repair
• Prohibit non-compliance beyond 2010
• Provide equally effective access for all sites
  needed for programmatic access until repair or
  replacement completes.

16
First Year Report

• Establish Scope Administrative Sites
• Data Collection
• Sample Selection
• Testing and Fixing
• Data Analysis First Year Web Report
• Planning Campus Web Plans
• Administrative sites guide users to services.
• Both the Content Management System (CMS) and the
  Learning Management System (LMS) are
  administrative.
• Sites that consist of course content are
  instructional and not administrative.

17
Web CoPWeb Community of Practice

• Coordinates system wide Web Team meetings to
  solve the detail of measurement, planning and
  implementation
• Share knowledge, skills and accomplishments
• Solve common problems
• Interpret the requirements of the ATI Web
  Priority
• Walk through individual and collective fear,
  confusion frustration, and resentment
• Surprise, surprise It works!

18
Accomplishments and Disappointments

• Truly effective evaluation tool suite
• Strong reporting and planning infrastructure
• Community bonding
• Weak communication infrastructure
• Communication overload
• Ambiguities regarding authority

19
Instructional Materials (IM) Priority

• Toward a universal design model
• for creating and adopting instructional materials
• Presented by Mark Turner
• Director of CSU Center for Accessible Media (CAM)
• CSU Office of the Chancellor

20
Defining the Scope

• IM are provided in a wide variety of formats
• Print-based materials (textbooks, course readers,
  lab manuals, e-reserves, handouts, exams)
• Digital materials (web tutorials and simulations,
  lab software)
• Multimedia (lecture recordings, instructional
  videos, graphic images)

21
Tracking educational technology trends

• Increased offerings of online and hybrid courses
• Increased use of multimedia content (podcasting,
  electronic white boards)
• Increased interaction and collaboration
  (clickers, discussion boards, blogs, wikis)
• Increased individualization of materials
  (interactive simulations, self-paced tutorials,
  branching exams)

22
Identifying the stakeholders

• IM are selected, authored, and distributed by a
  wide variety of campus entities/affiliates
• Academic Departments (Faculty, book coordinators)
• Information Technology Services (web, LMS, Help
  Desk)
• Faculty Center for Professional Development
• Library
• Bookstore (campus and external vendors)
• Copy Shop/Graphics Dept.
• Computing Labs
• Disability Services

23
Promoting a Universal Design model

• Incorporating Universal Design concepts into
  institutional programs and services from project
  inception improves
• Usability of IM for the widest possible pool of
  users
• Timeliness of delivery for students with
  disabilities
• Learning for other at-risk groups (e.g. captions
  for ESL)
• Flexibility by facilitating repurposing of IM
  (e.g. Palms)
• Efficiency by reducing the need to develop and
  maintain separate specialized IM
• Compliance by demonstrating proactive, systematic
  efforts

24
Establishing a Timeline

• June 15, 2007 Submission of the first draft of
  first year Instructional Materials Accessibility
  Plan (IMAP)
• Provided a reporting template for 11 areas
  identified in Coded Memorandum
• November 1, 2007 Submission of the final draft
  of the first year Instructional Materials
  Accessibility Plan
• Fall Term, 2008 New courses and new course
  content including IM and instructional websites
  will be designed and authored to incorporate
  accessibility
• Fall Term, 2012 Instructional materials and
  instructional websites for all course offerings
  will be accessible

25
Identifying Early Successes

• Evidence of top-down support from campus
  administration and Academic Senates
• Involvement of and improved communication across
  key stakeholder groups
• Many promising practices that can be shared
  across the system
• Innovative use of technology to facilitate
  progress
• Interest in systemwide and multi-campus
  collaboration

26
Identifying Challenges

• Communication and training solutions that scale
  well
• Mechanisms that allow large institutions to
  evaluate progress (tracking systems, measures of
  success)
• Effective and efficient systems to evaluate and
  document requests for exceptions/exemptions
• Mechanisms to incentivize participation in
  cultural change
• Use of off-campus entities (vendors, media)

27
Systemwide Resources

• Aggregate a list of promising practices and tools
• Coordinate a systemwide RFP for a web-based
  training system
• Provide Faculty access to alternate media
  holdings information in CAM database
• IM CoP for discussion of challenging or novel
  topics (math and science content)
• Coordinate communications with vendors and
  standards bodies to promote adoption of
  accessibility principles

28
Procurement Priority

• Application of Section 508 Standards to
  Electronic and Information Technology (EIT)
  Procurement
• By Deborah Kaplan, Director, Accessible
  Technology Initiative, CSU Office of the
  Chancellor

29
Basic Principles

• The CSU must incorporate Section 508 standards as
  it develops or acquires new EIT resources.
• The CSU is required to purchase EIT products and
  services that conform to Section 508 standards,
  if such are commercially available, and their
  purchase does not result in an undue burden or
  fundamental alteration.

30
EIT Procurement Plans

• Identification of roles and responsibilities
• Milestones and timeliness
• Procedures for equally effective alternate access
• Communications process and training plan
• Evaluation process for measuring effectiveness of
  the plan
• Process for determining exceptions, undue burden,
  or fundamental alteration

31
Phased Implementation

• Sep 1, 2007 Formal solicitations and
  acquisitions greater than 50,000
• Sep 1, 2008 Non-procurement card acquisitions
  greater than 2,500
• Sep 1, 2009 Procurement card acquisitions
  greater than 2,500
• Sep 1, 2010 All EIT procurements

32
Challenges

• Change management and risk management
• Bringing procurement officers and risk managers
  out of their comfort zones and into the
  discussion and planning
• Decentralization of compliance reviews for
  distributed EIT purchases

33
Approach

• Change management and risk management
• Bringing procurement officers and risk managers
  out of their comfort zones and into the
  discussion and planning
• Decentralization of compliance reviews for
  distributed EIT purchases

34
Licensing Digital Collections

• Application of the Procurement Process to
• Electronic Library Materials Acquisition
• By Lisa Moske, Director
• Systemwide Electronic Information Resources
• California State University, Office of the
  Chancellor

35
Approach

• Leverage CSU-wide procurement and master enabling
  agreements (MEAs) as much as possible
• Add an appropriately skilled accessible
  technology (AT) specialist to proposal evaluation
  teams for formal solicitations
• Review of major procurements by campus risk
  manager
• Train distributed IT staff to serve to conduct
  compliance review for distributed EIT purchases

36
Scope

• CSU-SEIR (Systemwide Electronic Information
  Resources) manages over 60 systemwide agreements,
  covering over 200 resources, for the 23 CSU
  libraries
• Digital content for libraries is licensed from
  and hosted by both commercial and non-profit
  vendors
• Scholarly journals, index abstracts services,
  statistical information, encyclopedias, general
  reference, directories, archives, aggregated
  resources
• Over 25,000 full text titles
• Resources cover core programs, including Arts and
  Humanities, Life and Physical Sciences, Social
  Sciences, and professional programs
• Information is delivered and searchable on
  web-based platforms

37
Advisory Process

• CSU-SEIR works closely with each of the campus
  libraries and with the Electronic Access to
  Information Resources (EAR) Committee, an
  advisory committee appointed by the Council of
  Library Directors
• SEIR, in partnership with the libraries and with
  EAR, engages the ongoing effort to inform vendors
  and providers on systemwide needs, including
  accessible technology
• The EAR Committee recommends resources of
  systemwide interest, advises on systemwide
  collection development criteria and standards,
  and performs formal product reviews
• The EAR review process was revised in 2006, and
  includes a special evaluation form for 508
  compliance and accessibility

38
Challenges

• Informing the publishers of digital content about
  accessibility is an ongoing and challenging
  effort
• In 2003, the Chair of the EAR committee invited
  the vendors SEIR works with to engage in a dialog
  about accessibility. Only a handful of vendors
  responded.
• Vendors have varying levels of understanding of
  the requirements many must make substantial
  changes in their business practices and product
  development cycles to comply
• SEIR requests that vendors fill out the VPAT
  (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) and
  discusses compliance and/or company timelines for
  building compliant platforms during contract
  negotiations for renewing agreements and when
  considering new resources
• Fortunately, we notice ongoing, progressive
  change and increased understanding
• Before new resources are considered for
  systemwide purchase, vendors must exhibit
  compliance or have a timeline for compliance in
  place

39
Positive Change

• The CSUs negotiations and conversations with
  vendors are creating a broader awareness that
  will benefit the wider community
• Vendors are showing more awareness and
  understanding of the needs and are more
  responsive to requests for information and for
  change
• Accessibility and/or compliance clauses or
  statements are being included in publishers
  licenses
• Adding compliance statements to current and new
  systemwide agreements is progressively building
  the record, and will eventually allow campuses to
  track accessible products and services

40
Presenter Contact Information

• Deborah Kaplan dkaplan_at_calstate.edu
• Wayne Dick wed_at_csulb.edu
• Lisa Moske lmoske_at_calstate.edu
• Mark Turner mturner_at_calstate.edu

41
References Related Resolutions of the Academic
Senate of the CSU

• Support of SB 302 (Kuehl), AS-2614-03, May 5-6,
  2005
• http//www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutio
  ns/2002-2003/2614.shtml
• Students Access to Academic Information
  Technology, AS-2700-05 FA, May 5-6, 2005
  http//www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolution
  s/2004-2005/2700.pdf
• Provision of Accessible Electronic Material by
  Publishers, AS-2730-06/AA, January 26-27, 2006
  http//www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolution
  s/2005-2006/2730.shtml
• Faculty Role in Mitigating the Costs of
  Textbooks, May 4-5, 2006
• http//www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolution
  s/2005-2006/2747.pdf

42
References Legislative Links

• Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act
  (Federal)
• No otherwise qualified individual with a
  disability in the United States shall 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
• http//ericec.org/sect504.html
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
  (Federal)
• Provides a clear and comprehensive national
  mandate for the elimination of discrimination
  against individuals with disabilities
• http//www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/ada.txt
• California Education Code 67302 (AB 422) (1999)
  (State)
• Requires publishers to provide e-text to eligible
  students with print-related disabilities
• http//info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0401
  -0450/ab_422_bill_19990915_chaptered.html
• Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (1998)
  (Federal)
• Applies accessibility standards to procurement
  and development of electronic and information
  technologies by federal government agencies
• http//www.section508.gov
• SB 105 (Burton), 2002 (State)
• applied section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation
  Act to state governmental entities regarding
  accessibility of electronic and information
  technology
• http//www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0
  101-0150/sb_105_bill_20020929_chaptered.html
• SB 302 (Kuehl), 2003 (State)
• applies Section 508 to the CSU and codified in
  California Government Code 11135 (effective Jan,
  2004)
• http//www.spb.ca.gov/civilrights/documents/CALIF
  ORNIA_CODES_11.pdf

43
The Accessible Technology Initiativehttp//www.ca
lstate.edu/accessibility