University Councils and Committees
Page tree

Accessibility ICT Policy Council 
Monday, January 26, 2020
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Zoom (Please see Outlook Invite for Details)

Members Present: Lisa Andreotta, Melanie Domanico, Bethany Heaton Crawford, Angela King Taylor, Lana Pettit, Miguel Pica, Paula Possenti-Perez, Pamela Thomas, Brian Tibbens, Robin Wade, Scott Warren

Co-chairs: Jenny Gluck and William Myhill

Minutes: Christian Jones

Minutes

  1. Welcome/Announcements
     
  2. Review ICT Accessibility Policy
     

  3. Recommendations Review Plan
    1. We have organized recommendations outlined by HirePotential as displayed in the table on our AICTPC landing page, and thought we would work through each item as a Council as a means of reviewing, revising, challenging, etc. the policy, and to capture and address any gaps. 

    2. We are keeping a working Google document for changes to the ICT Accessibility Policy 
       

  4. Recommendations - Public-facing table Private table
    1. General Changes
      1. Differentiating between exclusions and exceptions would be helpful. 

      2. Defining conditional approval and conditions that approval can be gained

        • Going through the procurement process, we can move to approve something on a conditional basis, as opposed to a denial, if there is a plan in place for the vendor to meet accessibility requirements within a given period of time (commonly one year). 

      3. Add definition of “Roadmap”

      4. Defining “Renewal” - is it considered a new product if it’s never gone through accessibility review? This has been a gray area. 

        • Acquired doesn’t necessarily mean you paid for a product. 

        • At what point do we require folks to go through the process for renewals of products procured before the policy was put in place? We may want to define a timeline. 

      5. We need a way to embed content in the policy.

      6. The procurement processes are not well-documented in the policy as they evolved after the policy was created. We worked with Enterprise Process Support to define a process and somewhere in the recommendation table is a call to get that into the policy.

    2. Recommendation 1: Do not revert to a limited web accessibility policy.
      1. This speaks to what we are required to do. 

      2. Regarding the statement, “The policy also provides a method to ensure that communication at University-wide events is accessible and enables full participation,” there was mention that this isn’t really technology-focused as it also relates to access to buildings, catering, etc.

        • We might want to specify. It’s our job to ensure the policy states that events should be accessible and lists the technology and services required to make them so.

      3. In the first line, regarding “the Syracuse University community and their guests,” we don’t provide licensing for non-University community members. 

      4. Comments/decision of the group:

        • All agreed.

    3. Recommendation 5Add updates to the policy regarding any roles or committees, as determined/recommended by HirePotential.
      1. Edit Section 5.C of the Policy to include the AICTPC as a formal working group

        1. With the creation of the AAC and ACC, this was left in the hands of the ACC to review. 

        2. Who should be the group that reviews policy regularly?

          • AICTPC makes sense in regular intervals. 

          • Define the roles of the AAC, AAC, AICTPC, Advisory Groupand other working groups to clarify each’s distinct role and charge.  

          • Paula noted that some language will be formalized in July to be provided by the Disability Community Group (DCG). 

          • If sponsorship for this Council changes, we can go another route.

          • It may make sense when we define this group in the policy, rather than just name the group and state its mission, to include a sentence about being comprised of representatives from the various departments/units and DCG. 

          • We could also note that “this is in partnership with DCG in (list) ways”

          • Another thought was to include someone from University College. Jenny can reach out to Mike Frasciello to see if someone is available to join the AICTPC.

        3. Perhaps also someone who represents academics?

          • Angela King Taylor represents the Office of Academic Affairs and Faculty Affairs. 

        4. Center for Online Digital Learning representation? 

          • This will likely be covered by the UC appointment.

        5. There was mention of 2U. 

          • Peter Vanable?

             

  5. Homework/next steps

    1. Review the Policy and remaining B-grouped items. 

       

  6. Next Meeting
    1. WCAG 2.x AA Compliance Orientation & Comparison Table
    2. Review Changes to the Policy Discussed today (1/26)
    3. Address Recommendations 6 and 7, and others if time permits

Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2021, 3-4 PM


  • No labels