University Councils and Committees
Page tree

Accessibility ICT Policy Council 
Tuesday, February 9th, 2021
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Zoom (Please see Outlook Invite for Details)

Members: Lisa Andreotta, Melanie Domanico, Bethany Heaton Crawford, Angela King Taylor, Vince Patriarco, 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

Agenda

  1. Welcome/Announcements (Jenny and William)
  2. Review Policy Changes from 1/26 Meeting (Christian)
    • In discussing the accessibility review process, Vince Patriarco addressed a matter of the procurement process, and the desire to align the procurement process with the accessibility review process and make modifications where needed to ensure they work hand in hand. Once we have the Policy refined, we will better be able to work with the procurement process to align the two.
  3. Standards (William and Pam)
    1. Overview of ADA and Rehabilitation Act (William)
    2. WCAG as testing protocol (Pam)
      1. Intents, Function, Merits
      2. Orientation & Comparison Table
        1. WCAG 2.x AA Compliance
        2. 508
  4. Recommendations - Public-facing table / Private table (Group)
    1. Recommendation 6: Follow peer and/or other institutions’ guidelines by making a table with relevant standards, as appropriate.
      1. Develop a table outlining relevant standards. 

        • Update: Pam Thomas drafted a table that is modeled after HirePotential’s own table (refer to Standards Table for AICTPC (Draft)).

        • The table includes ICT type, examples, as well as beginning and ending dates for various standards.

      2. We could (as a University) define certain cases where there is a need for archived content, as well as define how that content is to be handled. We need to be explicit so people know what guidelines to follow and when. 

      3. If we can agree upon the standards and the broad application of them, we can go through various exclusions/exceptions to assess their nuances. 

      4. Robin Wade noted that if talking about creation of new content (separate from archival content), it would be advantageous for this to be for public consumption; we would need to have something that addresses that. 

      5. Remediation involved in getting various documents accessible for a given user can vary depending on length of a document, type of accessibility needed, and other factors that can create short to extensive delays in materials available. It provides a lesser opportunity if a student has to wait a day/week to get something as opposed to getting something at visual fingertips. (This speaks to the point about not providing a lesser service.)

      6. We also shouldn't assume that all of these documents are textual documents. Many resources are non-textual. 

      7. Pam will rework the table in some of the ways we’ve discussed then we will use the 2/23 meeting to review. We can review where it fits in the policy. 

    2. Recommendation 7: The University intends to continue to use WCAG 2.1 AA for new purchases; SU will fall back to WCAG 2.0 AA for existing products and services, until the next ICTAP policy review. (Deferred to next meeting)
    3. Recommendation 8: Add a progressive standards intent table that includes historical citation dates. (Deferred to next meeting)
  5. Homework/next steps
    1. Review next recommendations 7 & 8

    2. Review changes made to the table. 

    3. Review the Legacy software timeline, expectations, etc.

  6. Next Meeting
    1. Legacy Software and Recommendation 9

Supplemental Materials:

Accessibility ICT Policy 

Accessibility ICT Policy - Working Document

 

Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2021


  • No labels