Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • ITAccessTP Meeting 2014-05-29
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

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

May 29, 2014, 10:00-11:00, Union S. (Check TITU)

This is a meeting of the full tools team.


  1. Agenda Review OK

  2. Notes from prior meeting
    Action: Send any edits to Gary.

  3. Scheduling more meetings? Just keep rolling forward? OK

  4. RFP Team status (still on hold pending this team's recommendation)

  5. Selection of co-chairs for the team

    • Phyllis volunteered to be a co-chair. No objections by the team.

    • Tony Tallmadge volunteered but need to check with his management. Tony will send a message to Gary.

  6. Status of evaluation of FAE 2.0
    Action: Done. Results handed out. It scored less than 1/3 of the points that a typical commercial package scored. To be fair, we need to take the maximum of the evaluations of FAE 2.0, FAE Auditor, and the OAA Firefox extenstion, because these three form a combination where each addresses particular needs. See below...
  7. Plans for evaluating  FAE Auditor. 
    Action: Gary did a rough evaluation of Enterprise section of the requirements, based upon what we observed in the demo video from the conference. This added about 250 points. Bringing the total up to about 1/3 of the points scored by a typical commercial package.

  8. Plans for evaluating OAA Firefox extension (version 0.16.2)

    Action: The evaluators will do this.  Gary will take the max of the results of all three, as discussed in item 6 above.

    Further action:

    We anticpate that the evaluation of the OAA extension will add only a modest number of points, perhaps reaching a total of approximately 1/2 the points scored by a typical commercial package. This not the result of any fundamental flaw in the FAE suite as it has been developed so far. Commercial packages include several important things that are either missing or only partially available in the FAE suite, including such things as training, support, documentation, development plan, etc. All of these could be added to FAE in some form. That is something that the CIC might want to explore. However, until that is done, the team believes that UW-Madison needs a more fully featured solution for the next one to three years.

    Decision: Unless the results of the evaluation of the OAA extension are surprising high, (which is unlikely,) the team has decided to recommend the commercial solution identiifed in the RFP.

    Outline of recommendation to the sponsors:
    1. Go with the commercial package
    2. Pay year-by-year. There are still a lot of unknowns, and we don't want to be locked into three years. Also, as FAE develops further, UW-Madison may want to switch to it.
    3. Rollout the commercial package to a small group of volunteer units as Phase I of the implementation.
      1. Identrify a DoIT service team, and funding to pay for the work of that service team.
      2. Make it a fully featured service include: support, training, documentation, a server platform (required), application support, and consulting service. Regarding consulting, there is synergy between this team's recommendation and another recommendation being developed elsewhere: to hire a full time accessibility consultant for the campus community.
    4. Continue to contribute to the development of FAE in cooperation with the CIC. The team wants to emphasize that the decsion to go with a commercial package at this time need not lessen UW-Madison's interest and participation in the long-term development of FAE in cooperation with the CIC.
    Gary will draft the recommendations. The team will review the draft at the next meeting.
  9. Identifying a DoIT Service team for the "service"
    Action: Deferred until after the team delivers the recommendations to the sponsors.
  10. Review possible agenda items, see below.
    These are essentially a rough plan of action for future team activity.
    Action: Most of this will be built into the recommendations, and if they are accepted, will be mostly managed by the service team. The tools team will continue to have a role providing input as representatives of the web accessibility community, coordinating the efforts of the participating units, and identifying the 'lessons learned'.

Future agenda items:

After the 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  – Are we on the right track?
    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:


Tools Team Members:

MemberUnit MemberUnit MemberUnit
Chris ArndtCALS Al Nemec (co-chair)CALS James SkempBusiness
Gary De CluteCIO Office (facilitator) Vince RoseDoIT Comm Tony TallmadgeCAE
Jessica JonesDoIT Comm Casey SchacherLibrary Phyllis Treige (co-chair)DoIT Comm
Emily MacalusoDoIT Comm Todd SchwankeMcBurney   


File Created Comment


May 20, 2014 18:58  


  • No labels