Priority-Based Approaches to Accessible Procurement, Planning, and Implementation at Michigan State University CSUN Conference 2017
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like160 views
The document outlines Michigan State University's (MSU) approach to enhancing accessibility through priority-based procurement, planning, and implementation. It discusses the evolution of MSU's accessibility program, key challenges faced, and the necessary policies required for effective compliance with legal standards such as the ADA. The document emphasizes the importance of a proactive strategy, executive support, and audit mechanisms to ensure continuous improvement in accessibility practices across the campus.
Priority-Based Approaches to Accessible Procurement, Planning, and Implementation at Michigan State University CSUN Conference 2017
- 1. Priority-Based Approaches to Accessible Procurement, Planning, and Implementation at Michigan State University Nate Evans – Manager, MSU IT and MSU Hub Kristine Moore – Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel MSU
- 2. Agenda • Evolution of Michigan State University’s accessibility program (Kristine) • Michigan State University’s Accessibility Policies and Processes (Nate) • Michigan State University’s Look Forward (Nate & Kristine) • Observations/Challenges (Nate & Kristine)
- 3. EVOLUTION OF MSU’S ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM
- 4. How did we get here?
- 6. Lessons Learned • Don’t wait for the perfect guidance. There is no such thing as the perfect guidance. • ADA is a balancing act, requiring creativity in solutions.
- 7. • Equal access in terms of communication = communication with persons with disabilities must be AS EFFECTIVE as communications with others 28 CFR 35.160(a); 28 CFR 36.303; 34 CFR 104.4 • Factors to determine what “as effective” is: • Timeliness of delivery • Accuracy of the translation • Provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual with the disability. ADA, Rehabilitation Act: Equal access with respect to communication
- 10. Evolution of the law • Title III cases: • 2006, Target • Court affirms web is a “place of public accommodation” • 2012, Netflix: court split develops • 2015, Scribd • 2017, Seaworld • “The internet is a unique medium – known to its users as ‘cyberspace’ – located in no particular geographical location, but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the internet.”
- 11. Title III • More than 250 lawsuits filed in 2016 about inaccessible websites and/or mobile apps • Hundreds if not thousands of demand letters
- 12. Title II Over last several years, numerous cases in higher education: • Arizona State - Kindle (2010) • Penn State (2011) • Louisiana Tech (2013) • Youngstown State (2014) • University of Cincinnati (2014) • University of Montana (2014) Subregulatory guidance: • 2010 & 2011 Department of Education, Dear Colleague Letters, e- Readers
- 13. DOJ Regulations • Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (ANPRM) in 2010 • Supplemental ANPRM again in 2016 • Timeframe: ????
- 14. Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (SANPRM) (longest acronym in the world!) • The scope is limited to web content – does not go as far as DOE • Proposes standard = WCAG 2.0AA • Shortage of consultants? • Small businesses: different standards? • Proposes exemptions for: • Third party content linked to on a website • Third party posts on a website • Archived material on a website • Higher Ed: Material password protected in a learning management system • Mobile apps • Undue burden / fundamental alteration • How should compliance be measured?
- 15. Roadmap: Departments of Justice and Education Settlement / Resolution Agreements • Require an Accessibility Policy that sets and enforces a technical standard such as WCAG 2.0 • Require annual training of employees • Require audit of compliance with policy • Designate an EIT Coordinator • Create a purchasing process
- 19. “Where do you start?” • Web Accessibility • Course accessibility • Content accessibility • Captions • Software and services • Accessible purchasing
- 20. MSU’s ACCESSIBILITY POLICY & PROCESS
- 21. MSU Policy • Web Accessibility Policy • Policy requires that all University Web Pages (used to conduct core university business or academic activities) be accessible, per the technical guidelines at webaccess.msu.edu • Current technical guidelines: WCAG 2.0 AA
- 22. Proactive Measures to Ensure Compliance with Policy • Executive alignment and support for digital accessibility • EIT Coordinator • ADA/504 Coordinator • Education / training • EIT Accessibility Implementation Project (2015-2016). *Two priority-based approaches emerged: 1. Purchasing Process – EIT as well as web 2. Audit Mechanism with local autonomy
- 23. Priority-based approach: EIT Accessibility Purchasing Process
- 24. Assess the Priority Highest: • Large audience / user base consisting of students. • Required for course work. • High degree of educational opportunities/benefits through technology. • There is no easily identifiable alternative that provides an equally effective, equally integrated program/service in an equally integrated manner to individuals with disabilities. • There is a commercially available accessible alternative.
- 25. Priority-based approach: EIT Accessibility Purchasing Process
- 26. Priority-based approach: Auditing with local autonomy
- 27. Priority-based approach: Auditing with local autonomy • Web Accessibility Policy Liaisons group • 42 MAUs • Five-year accessibility plans • Annual self-reviews
- 28. Web accessibility policy liaisons group
- 29. Five-year Accessibility Compliance Plans Five year plans are designed to show the process and progress of EIT accessibility in MAUs across campus and are to be vetted, evaluated, and approved by MSU's EIT Accessibility Review Committee (ARC). • Statement on Accessibility • Training methods and process • New Content • Existing Content • Purchasing • Strategic Plan by year • Resource allocation • Future needs
- 30. Training New Content Existing Content Purchasing Resource allocation
- 31. MSU’S ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM: LOOKING FORWARD
- 32. Michigan State University’s Look Forward How does the state of the law impact our Priority-Based approach and response? • Volatile Enforcement Climate: o New administration in Washington: DOE and DOJ on this issue: unknown o EO “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost” signed 1/30/17 o Plaintiff’s bar and advocacy groups always strong, likely will grow stronger o DOE and DOJ do not provide much time for compliance • Support in law for priority-based approach: o SANPRM contains priority-based elements o DOE and DOJ settlements show priority-based solutions o Analogy to ADA and physical barriers: the law does not require an all or nothing approach • Technology moves so quickly; law tends to lag behind. Issues, however, will not wait for the law to catch up. • Our mission and values may require more than current state of law.
- 34. Observations: Implementation of a Proactive Strategy • Alignment of ADA Coordinator, Legal, IT, Purchasing • Executive buy-in o Project leaders: IT and ADA Coordinator o IT - Pushing for funding for these positions. Funding for evaluations. o Legal - Guiding policies through appropriate avenues. Ensure stakeholders know legal developments and what they mean. o Good ADA Coordination o Purchasing is an excellent partner • Accessible Procurement Process - accessible contract language
- 35. Challenges: Implementation of a Proactive Strategy • Buy-in: “What is a screen reader?” “Can’t we just accommodate as we always have, on a case-by-case basis?” • Training • Forging partnerships • Resources • EIT coordinator (finding the right fit, someone who is qualified) • Getting people to think beyond the web. But no ideal set of standards. • Higher education, unique: a. Getting faculty to pay attention. Faculty are unique. b. Decentralized. So many employees posting content on the Web.
- 36. Successes! ✓Require an Accessibility Policy that sets and enforces a technical standard such as WCAG 2.0AA ✓Require audit of compliance with policy ✓Designate an EIT Coordinator ✓Create a purchasing process ✓Consider other technologies beyond web
- 37. Lessons Learned: • Don’t wait for the perfect guidance. There is no such thing. • ADA is a balancing act, requiring creativity in solutions. • The law, although slow to develop, does provide a road map. • A priority-based solution is the best solution given the challenges inherent in accessibility compliance
- 38. Thank you! Resources from Presentation: webaccess.msu.edu