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

I apologize that your email of June 11 first came to my attention today but my comments may be important for your consideration even though they are late.   I lost three fingers working in an oilfield in 1951 which greatly limited my ability to type rapidly even though I had become an excellent typist the preceding year  and even though after my accident my father purchased a typewriter with a one-handed Dvorak keyboard for me.

  Thus I was delighted  when I learned of Dragon Naturally Speaking some years ago.   I used it and particularly Dragon Medical on my PC for a number of years.  Recently I switched to Apple and am delighted that Nuance  (the company that owns or distributes Dragon)  now has a Dragon version for Apple computers though I believe the programs are not as well developed as those for PCs.  Voice recognition technology would not only allow upper-limb amputees  to word process, but it allows non-disabled individuals to produce documents several times faster than by typing.   Furthermore, the more expensive Dragon Medical has a very large medical vocabulary and would be excellent for medical students and physicians.  There is also Dragon Legal, and perhaps other specialty vocabularies will become available also.  In any event, the less expensive versions that do not have specialty vocabularies would be excellent for the average user.

  Thanks for considering making voice-recognition technology available.

, Clinical Professor of Medicine Emeritus, University of California, Irvine.  Founding Director of the Renal Division, Department of Medicine.  Founding Director of the Program in Medical Ethics. Past President of the UCI Emeriti Association.

rbmiller@uci.edu; 949-679-7431