Web Accessibility Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 2007

 

Present: Kathy Anderson, Peter Flores, Christine Hayes, Helen Kallenbach, Barbara Moore, Lynn Stauffer.

Absent: Brett Christie, Dan Condron, Elaine McDonald-Newman, Samuel Scalise, Lynne Trainor, Jason Wenrick.

Agenda

  1. Approval of minutes from 2/15/2007
  2. Update from CSU Web-COP Conferece Call
  3. Proposed List of Pages to Test
  4. Web Accessibility Implementation Plan

Notes

Approval of Minutes

For future meeting, all changes to minutes should be submitted to Barbara via email.

Update from CSU Web-COP Conferece Call

Barbara reported on the following developments from the 3/2/2007 WebCOP conference call.

  • Some CSUs are notifying campus developers whose pages are being tested. The subcommittee decided we should let the campus know that some pages are being tested.
    Action Item: Barbara will draft a message and share with the subcommittee for review. This could be sent to Newsbytes.
  • The WebCOP leaders want the campuses to include some sample pages from the local LMS and Peoplesoft. For Peoplesoft, we should choose a page from a module that has been locally developed (if one exists). While the accessibility of these types of pages are beyond our control, including these in our sample will help us to determine the scope of work for remediation of the entire University website.
  • The Coded Memo's September 1 milestone refers to "updated" websites. "Updated" means a design update or redesign, and not just a content update.
  • The WebCOP leaders say PDF accessibility is such that every PDF document should have an alternate, accessible HTML version. This may be a "best practice" instead of a requirement.
  • The WebCOP leaders say Skip Navigation links should be visible. The practice of hiding the Skip Nav with CSS or using a 1 pixel transparent GIF as a link are not accessible or user friendly for users with low vision, mobility or other disabilities. There was lots of discussion about whether this and other "best practices" should be codified.

Proposed List of Pages to Test

Barbara and Christine presented the proposed list of pages to test. The First Year Web Project requires 20 to 100 pages, so the subcommittee suggested changes, such as removing some of the academic department pages that are based on the same university template (the clocktower template). Barbara doesn't want to cut the list far below 100 - wanting the cross-section to be as representative of the University website as possible.

Action Item: Barbara and Christine will update the list of pages to test as recommended by the subcommittee. (See updated list of pages to test)

Web Accessibility Implementation Plan

The subcommittee reviewed the requirements for the Web Accessibility Implementation Plan and started initial discussions.

  1. A process for auditing, monitoring and remediation of websites.
    • AccMonitor will be used for auditing and monitoring. AccVerify might be used by some for repairs.
    • How often should sites be audited?
    • Who should get the reports?
  2. A process for establishing accountability, and documentation procedures.
    • Who should be responsible? Chair/Manager or designated AM/AC?
    • Many departments rotate responsibility for site updates. Departments with designated web person with long-term responsibility seem to have better sites (more consistent, info up-to-date, etc.).
    • How will we know when responsibilites change?
  3. A strategy to ensure that new websites and web content incorporate accessibility in the design and authoring process.
    • Training will be important here, even for people who don't develop sites, but hire or coordinate development efforts, redesigns.
    • Perhaps web developers should have to go through training before being given access to campus web servers?
    • Centralizing campus web development for administrative sites might ensure more consistency and standards-based design.
  4. A process for determining exception and for developing, documenting and communicating the equally effective alternate form of access that will be provided.
  5. A process for identifying critical adminstrative websites that require remediation.
  6. A process for providing alternative ways of delivering information during any period in which websites are undergoing retrofit.
    • All pages could include a link to contact info for assistance during retrofit.
    • Should non-compliant content be removed?
    • What kind of deadline do we put on remediations? We don't want developers to just put up a "contact for assistance" link instead of making repairs to site.
  7. A training plan for those who develop and maintan websites and who author web content.
  8. A communication plan to educate the campus about web accessibility requirements.
  9. An evaluation process to measure the effectiveness of the plan.
  10. The identification of roles and responsibilities associated with the above processes.
  11. Milestones and timelines that conform to the ATI Timeline.

Discussion on this topic will continue over the next few meetings.

Future Meetings

Next meeting is TBA.