Anzeige
Anzeige

Más contenido relacionado

Presentaciones para ti(20)

Similar a Developing Accessibility Training Strategies in Higher Ed(20)

Anzeige

Más de 3Play Media(20)

Anzeige

Developing Accessibility Training Strategies in Higher Ed

  1. Developing Accessibility Training Strategies in Higher Ed Jennifer Ismirle Senior User Experience Researcher Michigan State University www.3playmedia.com Twitter: @3playmedia Live tweet: #a11y • Type questions in the Q&A tab during the presentation • This webinar is being recorded & will be available for replay • To view live captions, please click the CC button Phillip Deaton Digital Information Accessibility Coordinator University of Michigan
  2. Developing Accessibility Training Strategies in Higher Education Phil Deaton & Jennifer Ismirle 3Play Media Webinar September 13, 2018
  3. Agenda • Overview of MSU and accessibility needs • Survey 1 study description and results • Training resources considerations • Survey 2 study description • Strategies for Training
  4. Michigan State University • Land-grant university; member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) • Over 200 academic programs/areas of study • 50,000 students: 39,000 undergraduate, 11,000 graduate and professional • 12,800 employees: 5,700 faculty & academic staff, 7,100 support staff • 563,000 living alumni
  5. Why talk about Training? • Most accessibility management programs within higher education are small (1-2) (~55%) • Training organization-wide is important to get more people involved • Training is more complicated than buying a vendor training and giving links to members in the organization • Training must account for different needs
  6. Current State of Training at MSU • We have custom face-to-face training • Online tutorials • Partnership with vendor for trainings, which are subsidized centrally • We utilize a distributed work model for accessibility (this means all employees need to be trained); 5-year plans • Training challenges > not force everyone to do everything
  7. UOE as a Case Study of Accessibility in Higher Education • Center for Student Learning and Civic Engagement – Students, community partners, social media • Center for Community and Economic Development – Urban and rural partners, faculty, students • Wharton Center for Performing Arts – General public, K- 12 students, faculty, graduate students • UARC – Government, academic, and industry partners
  8. UOE as a Case Study – Content Types • CSLCE – Community engaged learning courses, service- focused student group websites • CCED – Complex reports (PDFs), planning sketches/drawings, online surveys • Wharton Center for Performing Arts – Events, ticketing, third-party vendors, social media • MSU Museum – Physical and digital collections, public events, social media • The Engaged Scholar Magazine and E-Newsletter
  9. UOE as a Case Study – Organizational Complexity • Taken together, it’s a very challenging environment • Implementing a practical training strategy requires data and institutional commitment • Personnel time • Financial considerations for training, tools, Acrobat Pro • Building buy-in/awareness within and across departments
  10. UOE Accessibility Training Survey • Goal: Understand the state of accessibility awareness/training and knowledge across MSU UOE personnel • Develop strategic plan for training • Analyze results by role and by overall respondents to understand training needs • Survey conducted in summer of 2017 and again in summer of 2018
  11. Survey • 10 Questions • Anonymous to mitigate concerns over potential consequences for low knowledge or ability and to reduce bias in over-reporting of knowledge or ability • Indicate their general role at MSU (faculty, staff, or student)
  12. Survey Questions • Current Relationship with UOE • Types of documents or content typically create as part of job • Level of expertise with different types of technology • Confidence level for creating accessible documents (Word/PowerPoint, PDF, webpage text/images, videos) • Accessibility training completed (MSU or external) • What is required for MSU’s Web Accessibility Policy • Questions Text: usability.msu.edu/uoesurvey
  13. Example of Confidence Question (2018) • Are you confident that you create Microsoft Word documents that can be fully used by persons with disabilities? • I don’t create these documents or primarily use a different type of software to create documents. (N/A) • I create these, but I give it to someone else to make accessible. • I create these, but I don’t know how to make it accessible. • I can make some parts accessible, but not most parts. • I can make most parts accessible, but not everything. • I think I can make it fully accessible. • I know I can make it fully accessible.
  14. UOE Accessibility Training Survey Results • 2017 Survey Response: • Used UOE listserv to distribute survey • 87 responses (of 137) • 64% response rate • Groups/Roles: • Faculty, Academic Specialist, or Postdoc: 34% • Staff: 53% • Intern, Research Assistant, or Temp/Hourly: 13% • Content most are creating: • Microsoft Word documents and PDFs • Faculty: Microsoft PowerPoint presentations
  15. Microsoft Word Documents • 89% creating for their job role • 8% creating with someone else making accessible 14% I know I can make it fully accessible. 24% I think I can make it fully accessible. 18% Can make some - most parts accessible. 44% Don’t know how to make it accessible.
  16. PDFs • 82% creating for their job role • 7% creating with someone else making accessible 13% I know I can make it fully accessible. 22% I think I can make it fully accessible. 18% Can make some - most parts accessible. 47% Don’t know how to make it accessible.
  17. Microsoft PowerPoint Presentations • 56% creating for their job role (80% of Faculty) • 7% creating with someone else making accessible 6% I know I can make it fully accessible. 27% I think I can make it fully accessible. 15% Can make some - most parts accessible. 52% Don’t know how to make it accessible.
  18. MSU’s Web Accessibility Policy “Quiz” • List of 10 items: 4 required, 6 not required by policy • Or could select option: “I have no idea what is required”
  19. Accessibility Training Experience
  20. 2017 and 2018 Results Comparison 2017 Results 2018 Results Response: 64% Response: 73% Content: Word docs & PDFs (Fac: PPT) Content: Word docs & PDFs (Fac: PPT) Confidence (Accessible Word/PDF/PPT): • Don’t know how: ~48% • Give to someone else: ~7% Confidence (Accessible Word/PDF/PPT): • Don’t know how: ~15% • Give to someone else: ~19% Accessibility Training: • None: 49% • Taught by Colleague: 24% • Self-taught: 21% Accessibility Training: • None: 30% • Taught by Colleague: 19% • Self-taught: 22% • Classes/workshops through MSU IT: 41% • Tutorials/classes from other source: 20% MSU Web Accessibility Policy Quiz: • I have no idea: 26% • Incorrect: 68% MSU Web Accessibility Policy Quiz: • I have no idea: 30% • Incorrect: 64%
  21. Higher Ed Accessibility Study Description Survey higher education accessibility professionals: • Distributed to higher ed accessibility list-servs • Multiple respondents per institution allowed • Individual perception of institution Goal/Outcomes: • Goal: Study how higher ed accessibility professionals do work • Outcomes: Increased understanding of work practices, including barriers and opportunities
  22. Training/Support in Higher Education (Part 1 of 2) • 71.43% indicate institutional support doesn’t match need for accessibility • 60.59% indicate that they strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement “My institution provides sufficient support to individuals who work on Digital/EIT/web accessibility.”
  23. Training/Support in Higher Education (Part 2 of 2) • When given 5 options (Consultations/Training, Conferences/workshops, web development, user research with persons with disabilities, and communication from executive leaders who represent accessibility), 50.62% individuals indicated that Consultations/Training was what they thought was most important for organizations to provide
  24. Training Strategies Align Training Model with Accessibility Model: • Distributed work? Invest in distributed training. • Connect face-to-face (networking) with JITT • Focus on training at levels that different constituents need • Be responsive to change • Using vendors is fine, but there should be a strategy
  25. Contact Phil Deaton Digital Information Accessibility Coordinator (DIAC) Office for Institutional Equity University of Michigan pdeaton@umich.edu @deatonphil Jen Ismirle Senior UX Researcher Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting (UARC) Michigan State University ismirlej@msu.edu @IsmirleJen
Anzeige