Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at st-help@doit.wisc.edu    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • ITAccessTP Meeting 2014-03-20
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Accessibility/Usability Assessment Tool Purchase and Implementation (Tool Team)

Mar 06, 2014, 10:00-11:00, Union S., Forward (3rd floor)

This is a meeting of the full tools team.

Agenda

  1. Agenda Review

  2. RFP Team status
     

  3. Coordinating Group status
    (See ITAccessCG Meeting 2014-03-20 for a list of what the Coordinating Group is working on.)

    • Quality Showcase 

    • Teaching and Learning Symposium – May 19-20 

    • Organization of web accessibility guidelines and supporting material (draft) 

    • OSU document. Should we update it for our use?  

    • Content Management Templates

    • Brainstorm "Resources to help developers and content providers to incorporate accesssibility into their existing processes" 

    • Discuss the 'checkpoints' with the question: "What do we want developers and/or content providers who are 'getting started' to do"
       

  4. Discuss FAE Auditor Edition (prototype) "enterprise level" functionality and its implications

    Presentation: Video demonstrating FAE Auditor Edition (prototype) enterprise level functionality
    http://nwuniversity.adobeconnect.com/p2ejda0tp6a/
    start at 47:20.
     
    Action:
    We  decided to wait until the RFP is complete.  There is no need to decide until then. Jon at UIUC is busy right now thru end of April getting FAE 2.0 released. After that, we can evaluate FAE 2.0 and we can check in with Jon about planned functionality of FAE Auditor. We thought that it was OK to wait some small number of months in order to have time to evaluate FAE. It could meet our needs, save us a lot of money, and we (along with other CIC schools) can influence the direction of the development of the tool. There are also advantages to have AChecker (a page check), FAE 2.0 (a site checker) and FAE Auditor (an enterprise checker) all using the same 'back end' – the results will all be based on the same rule sets and criteria.

     

  5. Discussion(s) suggested at the 2014-03-06 meeting
    1. Focus on pages that are needed by students.
    2. Discuss techniques to help people be more effective at improving web accessibility.
    3. Consider how to get the word out to content creators. Note: the best sales/marketing will be automated tools that work really well.
       
      Handout: Web Accessibility Policy, (in particular, the implementation section.)
       
      Action: Deferred to next meeting.
       

Future agenda items:

Before main tool decision is made:

  • TBD

After main tool decision is made:

  • Consider specific needs of three different constituencies. What tools (purchased or free) do we recommend for each constituency?
    • enterprise level users,
    • web developers/web masters, and
    • content providers
  • Review overall plan: Phase I = a few interested departments, Phase II+ expand to more departments.
    1. Finish developing Phase I detailed description, expectations, etc.
      Include what to say to the rest of campus while phase I is in progress.
    2. Check-in with Coordinating Group –
      1. Are we on the right track?
      2. if so, division of labor between the two teams?
    3. Identify specific departments that are willing to take a role in phase I
    4. Identify what support is needed by those departments.
    5. Proposal for funding support development and delivery?
    6. Develop (or initiate development of) necessary support, keeping in mind that what is created needs to eventually scale to the whole campus
    7. Adjust time-line of phase I so that the support is available when the participants start.

Future Meetings

  File Modified
PDF File ImplementationPhases-2013-07-26.pdf Mar 17, 2014 by GARY W DECLUTE

Contact

  • No labels