University Councils and Committees
Page tree

Accessibility ICT Policy Council 
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
3:00 - 4:00 PM
Zoom (Please see Outlook Invite for Details)

Members Present: Angela King Taylor, Vince Patriarco, Lana Pettit, Paula Possenti-Perez, Pamela Thomas, Brian Tibbens, Robin Wade, and Scott Warren

Co-chairs: Jenny Gluck and William Myhill

Guests: Michael Morrison

Minutes: Christian Jones


  1. Welcome/Announcements (Jenny and William)
  2. Review the Legacy Software Prioritization Matrix
  3. Legacy Content
    1. Types of content to address (Review)
      1. ICT (formerly discussed as "Public-facing")
        1. Publications requiring remediation
        2. Videos requiring captioning 
        3. Videos requiring audio description
        4. PowerPoints requiring remediation
        5. Archived web content 
        6. Communications (e.g., news, agenda and minutes)
    2. Audiences
      1. The Public
        1. Recruiting materials
        2. Admissions materials
        3. Athletics materials 
        4. Past events  (graduation, for ex.) and supporting digital materials
        5. University records, shared stats
      2. Students
        1. Course content (student work, for ex.)
        2. Forms/Documents
        3. Research materials
      3. Employees
        1. Working teams, committees, councils (collaborations)
          1. Recent use of the content vs intentions to use it again
          2. If using as a reference document, make sure it's accessible. 
          3. Individual vs team/group use
        2. Human Resources 
          1. Forms, documents, policies 
        3. University Business Content
          1. Content that may be required by University personnel - protected or not
          2. Publications
          3. Proposals
      4. Alumni
    3. Strategy (Reference Draft Legacy Content Reference Guide
      1. Requirements for addressing types of content (access controls)
      2. Exclusions & exceptions
      3. Timelines
      4. Ownership
  4. Next/Future Meeting
    1. Language


Legacy Content

    • Types of Content to address

    • Audiences / Access / Intended function

      • Public

        • Includes a pre-defined audience, no login required.

        • Even public content generally tends to be more for the campus public, not necessarily for external audiences; we just don’t restrict it. 

      • Students

      • Employees

        • Employees have access to information the public does not. 

        • It was suggested that we add University Business Content under Employees, but we do have outliers such as Board of Trustees, who aren’t all employees but have all the records that need to be archived and retained. Part of this gets into records management and what is provided for, for example, legal requests. 

        • Part of it is about the legal agreements. How do we identify ourselves to external entities, such as IPEDS, etc. 

        • Perhaps add “Leadership” as a category. 

        • It’s important to remember that we’re talking about legacy content, not current content. 

        • Make a new category for alumni.

        • Records management - new category?

      • Other discussion points:

        • We’ve been trying to find a reasonable way to prioritize how content gets remediated, and one thought was to do this based on the audience. 

        • The public can access or not access. 

        • Michael suggested one way of doing this whereby we create two categories: Public and Restricted, the latter of which would encompass many of the subcategories mentioned above. If lining up with organizational business, perhaps the role/audience is more important. 

        • The role defines responsibility, then you have two categories (public and restricted) under each role. 

        • Role then access and content type.

    • Strategy

        • Reviewing the draft legacy content matrix and based on what several folks have touched on, by focusing on the audience and access and how we are to provide accessible materials will remove the need for us to define each content type. Moreover we would be defining responsibility and policy over process, which will change year by year anyways. 

        • We should be more focused on telling them what the priorities are. We’ve identified XYZ as being our first priority.  

        • Going back to the agenda, define by audience type/role, then access (anonymous and restricted), then content type.

        • A given role/responsibility might have responsibility over multiple content over different audiences, so if we provide guidance, they can use this to prioritize content. 

      • Public-facing is likely a higher priority than restricted unless it relates to student content. 

      • Exclusions would be anything archived and not accessed; also anything requiring authentication/login and low priority. 

        • Be careful about how we word this in the policy; we don’t want to imply the option to opt-out of remediation by putting something behind a login wall.

        • If it’s behind the kind of wall where only a system administrator can get to it, it’s probably ok to just leave it there, but if someone can get to it with a login, it still needs to be addressed. If a lot of people login to review it, that changes its prioritization. 

      • We can always point to external sources for reference, so as not to get too far into the weeds of the process. The matrix could serve as a support document to point to with a set of criteria to meet, which could help identify the level of support needed. 

      • If it’s necessary for students to be successful, it matters less about the type of content and more about the frequency of use and by whom and how many people. It’s not important that it’s a course video, the important part is that it’s a course material. Same thing about some public-facing pages; if a potential student needs to interface with an item to proceed in the process, the impact of not making it accessible will likely justify prioritizing it. Potential audience is a good way to go about it.

        • William offered a note of caution about saying “if a course is taught fewer than X times per year then it falls into X priority but if taught Y times per year, falls into Y priority.”

      • Perhaps think about it in terms of: the greater the number of students impacted, the higher the priority but popular classes with smaller enrollment also matter.

      • Again, we are talking about legacy, not current, content. If you make legacy content active content (such as resurfacing archived course content for a current course), whether it’s public-facing or restricted, you need to make sure it’s accessible. 

      • Maybe that’s what the policy needs to say: "Anything that is active and inaccessible needs to be remediated; anything that is archived and inactive can be left alone."

      • So really, content is either archived or active - do away with “legacy” terminology for content. 

      • If it’s archived, leave it alone/get an exception, but if it’s active/public, we need to make sure it’s accessible. There will then need to be priority for active content. 

      • Owners of inaccessible active content should also offer an option for remediation on demand. 

      • In an example scenario, Brian would get a report to share with his dean that would say we’ve gone through enrollments of all Newhouse classes and those with the highest enrollments get the priority. 

        • This would be problematic. The bar should be set to remediate inaccessible content. Out of that, prioritize what is actually required for the class versus what is supplemental/auxiliary reference material. Prioritize content that is required to achieve learning outcomes

      • If the course is required and content is required, that’s the first priority, regardless of medium. If content is supplemental, that's the second priority. 

        • All of the courses should require accessible material, regardless of size/type. It’s just a matter of where we start remediating. 

        • Paula addressed a further need for guidance/criteria around prioritizing required content for a required course. 

      • Michael Morrison suggested the use of Blackboard Ally or another tool to help folks look at websites that have large numbers of issues or just to help them set those priorities. 

Next Meeting

    • It would be interesting to show what Ally offers at the next meeting. We will invite Michael back for a show and tell.

    • We will focus on students and then move on to other audiences.

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 15th, 2021  

  • No labels