University Business - September 2011 - (Page 32)

internet technology “Universities may not, under federal law—as the Department of Education again made clear with its May guidance on accessible instructional materials and related technology—acquire, offer, or recommend technology that is inaccessible to those with print disabilities,” summarized Daniel Goldstein in an email. After the successful settlements between the Department of Justice and several universities regarding use of the Kindle DX device in the classroom in January 2010, the NFB’s attorney filed another formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against Penn State in November 2010. The official complaint said the institution was discriminating against blind students and faculty in providing access to services and information, thus violating Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Among the different problematic areas listed were the inaccessible websites of the library, the English department, the Computer Science and Engineering Department, the Communication Department, and ... the Office of Disability Services. In March 2011, the NFB filed new complaints with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, against Northwestern University (Ill.) and New York University for using Google Apps for Ed even though the application package was inaccessible to students with print disabilities. (Google committed to making the applications fully accessible by the beginning of this semester.) In June 2011, the NFB and its counsel, known for leading the charge against Target in a web accessibility lawsuit, went a step further. They offered assistance to two blind students who filed suit against Florida State University and its board for failing to provide equal access to course materials and evaluation methods. Until colleges put procedures in place to ensure purchases comply with the law, stop offering grants to faculty to develop online courses without a plan to make those courses accessible, fix their websites, and implement policies to ensure those websites stay accessible, warned Goldstein, they will be at risk of further liability. The RighT ThiNg To Do Web accessibility isn’t a nice thing to have. It’s the right thing to do to provide equal access to all. It’s the legal thing to do to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It’s the smart thing to do to assure that your web content will be found by search engines. Google is the ultimate disabled user: It doesn’t see, it doesn’t hear, and it can’t use a mouse. Yet, along with the other search engines and the social web platforms powered by algorithms, it will increasingly function as your eyes and your ears in the search for relevant information. Making an institution’s web content accessible to all users will soon be a mere prerequisite to becoming findable in the overflowing stream of data, and ultimately visible on the web. It’s time for your institution to follow in the footsteps of web and IT accessibility trailblazers and embrace the approach of universal design for digital environments—designing with an accessibilityfor-all mindset as it has been done for years in architecture and urban planning. Still confused by the alphabet soup of web accessibility (ADA, Section 508, WCAG 2.0, etc.)? Read this clarification written by Judy Brewer, WAI director, for web professionals in higher education: “The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 each address accessibility of information and communication technologies from different perspectives— civil rights on the one hand, and federal procurement of information technologies on the other. “WCAG 2.0 is a standard from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a standards body that develops technical standards for the Web. WCAG 2.0 is used by many web developers, and can also be referenced in policies. Increasingly, government agencies have been harmonizing their policies with the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.” While individual institutions may differ in approach and policy, many find that WCAG 2.0 has the advantage of being supported by an extensive library of technical and educational resources. These resources can make it easier for website managers to comply with WCAG 2.0. Resources Deque FireEyes (free accessibility Firefox plugin), www.deque.com /products/worldspace-fireeyes /training-videos EDUCAUSE Review article, “Universal Design for the Digital Environment,” www.educause.edu/er/archives (click on November/December 2010 issue) Functional Accessibility Evaluator, http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/HighEdWeb, www.highedweb.org HigherEd Live accessibility links and resources, http://higheredlive.com /episode-11-web-accessibilityin-higher-education National Federation of the Blind: http://nfb.org WAI presentation “Web Accessibility is Smart Business,” www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/bcase WCAG 2.0 guidelines, www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref A HORBURN SAN FRANCISCO LOS ANGELES A SSOCIATES ORLANDO RALEIGH-DURHAM HELPING DESIGNERS AND PLANNERS IMPLEMENT TODAY’S TECHNOLOGY www.TA-Inc.com/planning 32 | September 2011 universitybusiness.com http://www.deque.com/products/worldspace-fireeyes/training-videos http://www.deque.com/products/worldspace-fireeyes/training-videos http://www.educause.edu/er/archives http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/HighEdWeb http://www.highedweb.org http://www.higheredlive.com/episode-11-web-accessibility-in-higher-education http://www.higheredlive.com/episode-11-web-accessibility-in-higher-education http://www.nfb.org http://www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/bcase http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref http://www.TA-Inc.com/planning http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - September 2011

University Business - September 2011
Contents
Editor's Note
College Index
Ad Index
Behind the News
Viewpoint
Financial Aid
Money Matters
Internet Technology
Shared Governance
Acknowledging Achievement
Looking Back
Spotlight on Procurement
EduComm 2011
End Note

University Business - September 2011