Feedback about the Proposed UC IT Accessibility Policy

I have reviewed the Proposed UC IT Accessibility Policy.  I agree that this is a policy that needs to be defined. I have no other comments at this time.

 Carol R. Sison

csison@uci.edu

I have read the draft, but do not have any questions or comments.

 Karen Miller

kamiller@uci.edu

To the overpaid UCOP personnel who come up with this stuff,

This initiative, like your salaries, is a waste of taxpayer money.

want any more feedback?

 Dr. Larry Cahill

lfcahill@uci.edu

Professor,

Neurobiology and Behavior

My concerns with this policy surround faculty research and creative works.  When an artist/researcher creates a work of art and publishes it electronically, either as artistic expression or as part of a research project, the medium and exact presentation format is integral to the meaning of the work.  By adding audio to a written work of art, it changes the meaning or by adding text to a silent video  it can change the artist’s intent. 

I feel the policy is too broadly scoped to include any UC Information available electronically.  I believe it should more explicitly target websites on which the administrative or academic business of the University is conducted.   While the policy includes an exception provision it doesn’t provide the necessary exception for creative works and research that would be fundamentally changed by this policy.

Jason Valdry

jvaldry@uci.edu

Director of Technology Services

Claire Trevor School of the Arts

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed policy.  We have two minor comments:

1)      Recommend under Policy Definitions for Accessible to replace “blind or low vision people” with “people with impaired vision.”

2)      Policy document shifts between using “users”, “people” and “individuals” when referencing people with disabilities.  Recommend using only one term for consistency.

As for the implementation, we recommend for UCI a committee comprised of representatives from Disability Services Center, HR-Rehab/Return-to-Work, OEOD, and OIT; maybe also Risk Management/Purchasing, EH&S, Design & Construction Services, and Facilities Management. 

Kirsten Quanbeck

quanbeck@uci.edu

Assistant Executive Vice Chancellor and Director

Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity

I ... had an opportunity to read through the proposed policy and requirements.  Here is my feedback:

1. The proposal “IT Accessibility Requirements” states (p.3 section III;B;1) “Electronic information must meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 at level AA Success Criteria.”  100% compliance for WCAG 2.0  “AA” level is not any easy task, especially if it is for the entire site and all linked pages.  Does meeting “success criteria” mean having 100% compliance of WCAG 2.0 AA, or can it be a percentage range (like 97-100%)?  Does this need to be met for every page on http://www.lib.uci.edu including content to which we link?  Is there any thought as to compliance for WCAG 2.0 “A” level?
2. The proposal “IT Accessibility Requirements” states (p.3 section III;C) “University managers of programs and services must be prepared to provide content and/or services in a suitable alternative format.”  The Libraries have and will make our public site as accessible as possible without hindering the functionality of the site.  However, the exceptions should also include links to content from licensed providers (such as content from our electronic resource vendors).  We can encourage those providers to be compliant, but there may be times when their services cannot be provided in an alternate format.  That being said, we also believe that having in-person and virtual contact points (examples being our Reference and Check-out desks and services) meets the requirement to provide a “suitable alternative format.”

Ashley Burke  afburke@uci.edu