University Councils and Committees
Page tree

Accessibility ICT Policy Council 
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
4:10 PM - 5:00 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, and Scott Warren

Co-chairs: Jenny Gluck and William Myhill

Guests: Trudi Porter

Minutes: Christian Jones

Agenda

  1. Welcome/Announcements (Jenny and William)
  2. Review the Legacy Software Prioritization Matrix
    1. Every area is going to have to indicate what they are responsible for. 

    2. We wanted to capture the reviewer and the evaluator. 

    3. This table will help to capture how we actualize the process. 

    4. The need to have this completed coincides with the update of the policy. 

    5. We want to have this ready for use in the Fall. 

    6. We should make it clear in the page that the examples listed in the prioritization matrix are only meant to provide guidance to those completing rows for their areas’ software. 

    7. We spoke about having a year initially to give folks time to survey the software they own/use. 

    8. The Policy would reference a spreadsheet/system where this information would live. The Policy defines how we will do business but does not define the business, itslef. 

    9. Accuracy of this information should come from technical areas but ownership should be completed by functional areas. 

      • We could provide an area to define the reporter and technical lead

    10. It was noted that the table above (Policy Standards) is missing language for the title of item 3 under “PeopleSoft notes in suggested order of priority to remediate.” 

      • Update: Christian removed the title and replaced them with the components (SU customized pages and delivered pages).

  3. Legacy Content
    1. Types of content to address
    2. These three should take place simultaneously as high priority content. Public has more potential for wider exposure, whereas we have other systems in place and accommodations for immediate access to student-facing content. All three areas matter and should have accessible content. 

    3. Within content areas there can be more prioritization. 

    4. Once we get into the process discussion, we may end up asking the content area owners to help with prioritization. We can provide guidelines for the owners.

      1. Public-facing
        1. Publications requiring remediation
          1. Taking old content and making it native

          2. There’s plenty of content in public area that could be moved into an intranet or other place. This will help with digital governance.

          3. There’s a duration of time that folks have to make content accessible.

        2. Videos requiring captioning 
        3. Videos requiring audio description
          1. Perhaps some priority should be given to this video content. It will likely be a heavy lift for remediation. 

          2. Maybe we need a Legacy content matrix/rubric. Captioning vs audio description. There is an expense that comes with audio description. It is part of the requirements to meeting the updated WCAG standards. We can provide guidelines and also suggestions. 

          3. Perhaps having a decision tree would be helpful. 

          4. We could indicate preferable vs required markers for times when captioning vs audio description is needed. 

          5. Part of the evaluation process can entail data/analytics around how often a video is used, therefore if captioning/audio description for the resource is needed.

          6. There may be content (STEM, for ex.)  that is very expensive or very time-consuming, exceptions/exclusions. Just in time vs just in case guidelines would be good to have in the Policy.

          7. Lana can help us with a matrix.

        4. PowerPoints requiring remediation
        5. Archived web content 
        6. Communications (e.g., news, agenda and minutes)
          1. Archived news, etc. predating 2018. 

          2. Meeting minutes, agendas. 

          3. Again, we’ll need to invoke some sort of prioritization

          4. May have to do some sort of bar/tier where if it meets a certain point it needs to be remediate. Would rather dedicate resources to content going forward than remediating all historical content ever. 

          5. If Lisa could get us a list of the most popular historical pages, that would be helpful.

  4. Next/Future Meeting
    1. Continue discussing types of content
      1. Student-facing 
        1. Course content
        2. Forms/Documents
        3. Research materials
      2. Working teams, committees, councils
        1. Recent use of the content vs intentions to use it again
          1. If using as a reference document, make sure it's accessible. 
        2. Individual vs team/group use
    2. Strategy 
      1. Requirements for addressing types of content
      2. Exclusions & exceptions
      3. Timelines
      4. Ownership
    3. Action items:
      • make changes to the matrix
      • Lana will help with a legacy content matrix
      • Lisa will provide a list of the most popular historical pages

Supplemental Materials:

Accessibility ICT Policy 

Accessibility ICT Policy - Working Document

 Standards Table for AICTPC (Draft)

Draft Legacy Software Reference Guide

Ongoing Issues to Address

  1. Glossary of Terms
  2. End of Exception Cycle
    1. The exception is only good for the term of the version. How long is the life of the exception? What triggers a review of the product?
  3. Auto-renewals
  4. Vendor-deliverables 
  5. Review of DERC Phase 2 Recommendations Communications with Council (available in the Restricted Resource Library to AICTPC members)

Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 8th, 2021  


  • No labels