Events Archive

• Accessibility Compliance Roadmap and Deadline Extension: Barb led the meeting to clarify the implications of the accessibility compliance deadline extension to April 2027, emphasizing that expectations and risks remain unchanged, and outlined a phased, sustainable roadmap for university-wide progress involving webmasters.
  • Deadline Extension Clarification: Barb explained that while the accessibility compliance deadline has been extended to April 26, 2027, the requirements for accessibility remain in effect, and the risk of complaints or lawsuits persists; the extension allows for a more strategic approach rather than last-minute fixes.
  • Phased Roadmap Overview: Barb presented a four-phase plan: Phase 0 (ownership determination), Phase 1 (triage and easy wins), Phase 2 (process improvement and prevention), Phase 3 (strategic cleanup focusing on high-impact pages), and Phase 4 (validation and ongoing maintenance), aiming for sustainable progress rather than perfection.
  • Shared Responsibility Across Teams: Barb highlighted that accessibility is a shared responsibility across UIT, UMC, webmasters, and editors, with support teams handling templates and global components, while content managers control much of the accessibility through their daily work.
  • Success Criteria and Ongoing Maintenance: Barb defined success as having accessible core content, fewer PDFs, and effective processes, stressing the importance of ongoing validation, manual testing, and maintenance to prevent regression and avoid future panic.
• Axe Monitor Usage and Accessibility Data: Barb provided an update on Axe Monitor's deployment, noting nearly 1,000 sites configured, an average automated accessibility score of 74%, and active engagement from 257 users, while emphasizing the limitations of automated testing and the need for manual checks.
  • Automated Testing Progress: Barb reported that Axe Monitor has nearly 1,000 sites configured, with an average automated accessibility score of 74%, representing significant progress but not full compliance.
  • Limitations of Automated Testing: Barb clarified that automated testing covers only about 50% of accessibility issues, and reaching 100% in automated scores does not guarantee full accessibility, underscoring the need for manual testing.
  • User Engagement Metrics: Barb shared that out of 377 users, 257 have actively logged in, checked their scores, performed remediation, and rescanned their sites, indicating widespread participation.
  • Distributed Responsibility and Site Coverage: Barb described the distribution of accessibility work across UIT, UMC, enterprise apps, health websites, and miscellaneous scans, facilitated by naming conventions in Axe Monitor for site identification.
• PDF Accessibility Challenges and Solutions: Jason, Roger, Barb, and others discussed the difficulties of managing PDF accessibility errors, filtering them in Axe Monitor, alternative tools like Form Assembly for accessible forms, and ongoing evaluation of PDF remediation tools.
  • Filtering PDF Errors in Axe Monitor: Roger demonstrated how to filter PDF-related errors in Axe Monitor, showing users how to view, sort, and identify issues specific to PDFs, including page counts and URLs.
  • Alternative Tools for Accessible Forms: Barb recommended Form Assembly as an accessible online forms tool, offering integration with Google Cloud and email, and noted its strong accessibility compliance as a reason for selection.
  • PDF Remediation Tool Evaluation: Barb and Roger discussed ongoing evaluation of automated PDF remediation tools beyond Adobe Acrobat, expressing hope for campus-wide adoption to improve PDF accessibility.
  • Strategies for Managing Large PDFs: Peter shared a solution using a custom crawler to index all PDF files and create an accessibility page listing them with disclaimers and contact information, suggesting dedicated accessibility pages as an expedient approach.
• Manual Accessibility Testing and Advanced Compliance: Kevin raised questions about manual testing and advanced accessibility requirements for web applications, with Barb confirming the need for documentation and planning, and noting limited campus resources for manual testing, but offering to follow up for support.
  • Advanced Accessibility Challenges: Kevin described the complexity of achieving compliance with WCAG criteria such as reflow, keyboard interaction, and dynamic content, which often require architectural changes rather than simple styling fixes.
  • University Approach to Major Remediation: Barb advised documenting known issues and creating reasonable remediation plans based on team constraints, noting that the deadline extension was granted due to the scale and resource limitations faced by universities.
  • Lack of Centralized Manual Testing Resources: Barb acknowledged the absence of a dedicated campus resource for manual accessibility testing, though the Office for Disability and Access has assisted with global components, and promised to follow up with Kevin and others needing support.
  • Peer Collaboration and Tool Sharing: Peter offered to share a custom crawler tool that aids in manual review and triage, highlighting its visual and HTML mapping features for error identification and remediation, and invited others to contact them for access.
• Axe Monitor Access and Content Management System Features: Barb explained the process for granting Axe Monitor access to webmasters, described CMS features like Dependency Manager in Modern Campus for tracking PDF links, and noted similar functionalities may exist in other systems like WordPress.
  • Axe Monitor Access Setup: Barb stated that webmasters assigned to sites in the website registry are automatically granted Axe Monitor access, and additional access can be requested from UIT or UMC teams.
  • CMS Tools for PDF Link Tracking: Barb described the Dependency Manager feature in Modern Campus for identifying which pages link to PDFs, and suggested that similar features are likely available in other content management systems.
• Tools for Pre-Upload PDF Accessibility Testing: Cam, Barb, Roger, and Abbey discussed the limitations of Axe DevTools and Wave for pre-upload PDF accessibility testing, recommending PAC as a free tool for PCs and noting ongoing search for better solutions.
  • DevTools and Wave Limitations: Abbey clarified that Axe DevTools and Wave browser extensions cannot scan PDFs before upload, as they only work with HTML pages.
  • PAC Tool Recommendation: Roger recommended PAC, a free PC-based tool for scanning PDFs, as an alternative to Adobe Acrobat for pre-upload accessibility checks.
• SharePoint Document Access Issues: Michelle raised concerns about SharePoint permissions, with Barb committing to resolve access issues and distribute the necessary document to the group.
  • SharePoint Permissions Resolution: Barb acknowledged frustration with SharePoint permissions and promised to reattempt posting the document, ensuring correct access settings for distribution.
• Campus Map Accessibility Inquiry: Miranda asked about accessible solutions for classroom maps, with Barb indicating that campus map enhancements are on the roadmap and promising to follow up with relevant information.
  • Classroom Map Accessibility Plans: Barb noted that the campus map development team may be working on mapping specific classrooms and will investigate further to provide Miranda with a suitable solution.

• PDF Error Filtering Support: Work with Jason to provide guidance or a list on filtering PDF-related errors in Axe Monitor and share relevant screenshots in the Teams channel for broader reference. (Roger)
• Campus Map Accessibility Inquiry: Investigate whether the campus map development team has a solution for accessible building and classroom maps and follow up with Miranda regarding alternatives to image-based PDFs. (Barb)
• SharePoint Document Access: Re-attempt posting the referenced document in SharePoint with correct permissions and ensure distribution to all relevant participants. (Barb)
• PDF Pre-Upload Accessibility Tools: Research and recommend tools or workarounds for checking PDF accessibility before upload, and follow up with Jason and the group with findings. (Barb)
• Manual Accessibility Testing Resources: Follow up with Kevin to explore resources or support for manual accessibility testing, especially for issues not covered by automated tools, and share findings with the group. (Barb)

Generated by AI. Be sure to check for accuracy.

• Third-Party Vendor Accessibility Due Diligence: Barb led a detailed discussion on the university's responsibility for ensuring third-party vendor tools and applications are accessible, outlining a due diligence process and sharing a comprehensive checklist with participants including Michelle, Mark, Angie, and others.
  • University Responsibility for Vendor Accessibility: Barb explained that the university is responsible for the accessibility of all third-party vendor tools and applications used by students, staff, or the community, emphasizing the need to prioritize remediation efforts based on the impact of the tool on participation in university programs.
  • Vendor Accessibility Checklist Overview: Barb introduced and reviewed a vendor accessibility checklist document, which includes an email template for contacting vendors, a list of required documentation (such as VPATs and accessibility roadmaps), and guidance on documenting product details and usage.
  • Evaluating and Documenting Accessibility: The checklist instructs users to request a VPAT or conformance report, review known issues and workarounds, and document the accessibility lead's contact information; it also recommends performing a quick internal accessibility check using keyboard navigation, screen readers, and color contrast assessments.
  • Risk Assessment and Final Recommendations: Barb described a stoplight model for rating accessibility risk (green, yellow, red) based on the severity of barriers and vendor responsiveness, and advised that major barriers or high-risk tools should be escalated to department heads for decision-making, with all findings and recommendations documented.
  • Coordination for Campus-Wide Vendor Tools: In response to Angie's question, Barb clarified that her team manages due diligence for widely used campus tools (e.g., Nelnet, FormAssembly, Atlassian), and committed to creating a shared spreadsheet to track which vendors have been reviewed, coordinating with Aimee Elliott and encouraging departments to check before duplicating outreach.
• Accessibility Office Hours and Support Resources: Barb announced recurring virtual accessibility office hours, coordinated by UIT and UMC, to provide support and answer questions for webmasters and staff preparing for the Title 2 deadline, with Emily and others assisting in sharing booking links and resource information.
  • Office Hours Schedule and Booking: Barb shared that virtual accessibility office hours will be held every Friday from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM until the Title 2 deadline, with a booking link posted in the University Webmasters Community of Practice Teams channel for participants to sign up and submit questions in advance.
  • Session Structure and Expectations: Barb clarified that the office hours are intended for answering questions and helping participants overcome roadblocks in their accessibility remediation work, but are not designed for staff to remediate content on behalf of attendees.
  • Additional Faculty Support: Barb directed participants to the Center for Teaching Excellence, which offers resources and Thursday office hours specifically for faculty needing help with accessible course materials and PDFs.
• PDF and Flipbook Accessibility Guidance: Barb addressed questions from Mark, Michelle, and others regarding the accessibility requirements for PDFs, scanned documents, and flipbooks, providing guidance on remediation priorities, exceptions, and best practices for creating accessible content.
  • Flipbook Accessibility Challenges: Barb explained that PDF flipbooks, such as those created with ISSUU, often disrupt semantic structure and are generally not accessible, recommending that content be provided in accessible HTML or tagged PDF formats, and that a more accessible alternative be made available if flipbooks are used.
  • Remediation of Scanned PDF Consents: In response to Mark's question, Barb advised focusing on making future patient consent forms accessible by moving to online forms, while gradually remediating older scanned image PDFs by tagging them for accessibility, starting with the most recent and frequently used documents.
  • Exceptions for Pre-Existing Documents: Barb clarified that under ADA Title 2, pre-existing conventional electronic documents (such as PDFs, Word, and Excel files) uploaded before the compliance deadline are generally exempt from remediation unless they are required for participation, but this exception does not apply to videos or HTML content.
  • Faculty and Staff Process Improvement: Kim raised concerns about managing large volumes of PDFs from faculty, and Barb recommended leveraging the Center for Teaching Excellence for faculty training and resources, emphasizing the importance of setting accessibility tags in source documents before PDF creation.
• Video Captioning and Audio Description Requirements: Barb clarified for participants that all videos, whether public-facing or internal, must have captions according to WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines, and explained when audio descriptions are required, addressing a recurring question from the group.
  • Captioning Requirements for Videos: Barb stated that captions are required for all prerecorded videos with audio, regardless of whether they are public or internal, and referenced WCAG 2.1 AA guideline 1.2.2 as the standard.
  • Audio Description Guidelines: Barb explained that audio descriptions are only required if visual information in the video is necessary to understand the content, such as when a presenter does not verbalize slide content that is essential for comprehension.
  • Remediation Prioritization: Barb recommended prioritizing captioning for the most recent and critical videos, especially those required for participation, and working through large video collections in a triaged manner.
• Site-Wide Accessibility Banners and User Accommodation: Kim and others inquired about placing site-wide banners to communicate ongoing accessibility improvements, and Barb relayed guidance from OGC, recommending banners focus on providing contact information for accommodation requests rather than admitting non-compliance.
  • Banner Messaging Recommendations: Barb advised that banners should not state the site is non-compliant, but instead offer a clear avenue for users to request alternative accommodations if they encounter barriers, and committed to drafting approved wording for the community.
• Color Contrast and Template Updates: Larissa and Roger discussed issues identified by axe monitor regarding color contrast in web templates, with Barb confirming that the team will review and address these concerns as needed.
  • Template Color Contrast Issues: Barb and Roger agreed to investigate and update web templates to resolve color contrast issues reported by axe monitor, and requested specific examples from Larissa to facilitate the process.
• Vendor Cooperation and Documentation of Accessibility Barriers: Mark raised concerns about uncooperative vendors like Atlassian regarding accessibility documentation, and Barb advised documenting all issues and refusals, applying pressure where possible, and noted ongoing efforts to obtain VPATs for such tools.
  • Handling Uncooperative Vendors: Barb recommended that departments document accessibility issues and vendor refusals to remediate, communicate the legal obligations to vendors, and escalate persistent problems, while noting that her team is actively working on obtaining VPATs for widely used tools like Atlassian.

Follow-up tasks:

• Vendor Accessibility Checklist Sharing: Resolve the permissions issue preventing some participants from accessing the vendor accessibility checklist document in the meeting chat. (Barb)
• Flipbook Accessibility Guidance: Add the official stance on flipbooks and their accessibility limitations to the digital resources websites for reference by webmasters. (Emily, Digital Experience Team)
• PDF Accessibility Resource Links: Notify Sravi and UMC that the links for the resources site dedicated to document accessibility are not working and coordinate to have them fixed. (Barb)
• Banner Wording for Accessibility Compliance: Draft a site-wide accessibility banner message, run it by OGC for approval, and post the approved wording to the community for use by webmasters. (Barb)
• Third-Party Vendor Due Diligence Coordination: Create and share a spreadsheet in the Teams channel listing campus-wide third-party vendor tools and the status of accessibility due diligence, coordinating with Amy Elliott and relevant departments. (Barb)