Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Web (In)accessible

48 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Extant research has suggested that community college articulation agreements, admissions materials, sexual assault reporting guidelines, ADHD documentation instructions, and a host of other college student-related content is likely unreadable by its intended audience. Moreover, the majority of content posted on postsecondary institutional websites caters to a specific group of students: able-bodied English-speakers without learning disabilities. This presentation provides an overview of extant research regarding the readability, translation, and ADA accessibility compliance of institutional websites in the United States and provides practitioners with simple, practical solutions to render online content accessible, equitable, and ADA compliant for a wide audience. These solutions can ultimately increase stakeholder interaction with one’s institutional website, producing a more diverse, engaged stakeholder base.

Presenter: Zachary W. Taylor

Veröffentlicht in: Marketing
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Web (In)accessible

  1. 1. ZACHARY W. TAYLOR Research Assistant, The University of Texas at Austin JUNE 8TH, 2018 WEB (IN)ACCESSIBLE Technology Hurdles Facing Students with Disabilities Pursuing Graduate Education
  2. 2. This website does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  3. 3. This webpage item has no text data.
  4. 4. Purpose • Define web accessibility. • Outline current national and Texas state laws relevant to electronic information. • Review research study (briefly). • Provide accessibility tools for practitioners.
  5. 5. What is web accessibility? • Websites and web tools properly designed and coded to be used by people with disabilities (future/current students/staff) • Making the web “accessible.” – Source: W3C – Web Accessibility Initiative
  6. 6. January 18th, 2018 • Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: – Requires all Title IV higher education institutions to publish level-AA WCAG 2.0 compliant websites (source) – Websites must be web accessible for people with disabilities. • Why now?
  7. 7. State of Texas EIR Accessibility Laws • EIR = Electronic Information Resources • Per TGC 2054.451: – “…all institutions of higher education [must] provide state employees and members of the public access to and use of electronic information resources.” (source) • Per TAC 213c: – Accessibility standards for institutions of higher education. – “state standards…aligns accessibility standards with the federal regulations set forth in Section 508.” (source)
  8. 8. Be Compliant: What is WCAG 2.0? • WCAG 2.0: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines – published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (source) • A wide range of recommendations to make websites more accessible. • Four major criteria: – Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust
  9. 9. Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust • Perceivable: information must be presentable in ways the user can perceive. – Standard 1.2.1: Captions are provided for prerecorded audio (source); a Level-A standard. – This includes audio and video uploaded to institutional websites.
  10. 10. Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust • Operable: user interface components and navigation must be operable. – Standard 2.3.1: Webpages do not contain anything that flashes more than three times in one second (source); a Level-A standard. – This includes images, videos, and gifs uploaded on institutional websites.
  11. 11. Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust • Understandable: information and operation of user interface must be understandable. – Standard 3.3.2: Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input (source); a Level-A standard. – This includes providing labels in fillable PDF forms attached to institutional websites.
  12. 12. Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust • Robust: content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies. – Standard 4.1.1: no webpage elements have duplicate attributes and all elements have complete “tags” (source); a Level-A standard. – Includes all hyperlinks embedded in an institutional website.
  13. 13. Are Texas Higher Education Websites Accessible? By the January 18th, 2018 deadline, zero Title IV institutions in Texas (n=259) published web accessible websites per ADA guidelines.
  14. 14. What errors were on these websites? • Easily fixable ones. • Are webpages titled? • Are links labeled?
  15. 15. Suggestions for Practitioners • Suggestions: – Eliminate redundant/unnecessary content (Syracuse’s “cleaning” of their website) – Ensure completeness of information (Yale’s policy) – Involve students and faculty (faculty collaboration with web accessible course material) – If you don’t know there’s a problem, you won’t know how to solve it—Apple Voice Over and Windows Narrator – try it!
  16. 16. Tools for Practitioners • Tools: – Web accessibility checklist: web accessibility 101. – Achecker.com: web accessibility software on the web. • Plug and chug; unlimited auditing. • Downloadable .csv or .pdf file with all errors. • Not as user-friendly and informative. – Tenon.io: web accessibility software on the web. • Plug and chug; minimal auditing (3-5 pages before paywall). • Downloadable .csv (Excel) file with all errors outlined. • More informative and user friendly (in my opinion).
  17. 17. • Achecker output. • Multiple Level-AA errors. • Provides specific HTML location of error.
  18. 18. • Tenon.io output. • Explains nature of error clearly. • Provides HTML text to locate error easily.
  19. 19. Questions & Thank You! • Contact: zt@utexas.edu for free readability and web accessibility auditing.

×