Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • Phase I Meeting 2014-10-16
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Accessibility Phase I Task Force (Phase I) (a.k.a. the Tools Team)

Oct 16, 2014, 10:00-11:00, Union S.


  1. Introductions
  2. Agenda Review

  3. Notes from  prior meeting meeting. Please send comments, corrections to Gary.

  4. SSB Bart Implementation Live Call / Review

    Phil will be concluding a call with SSB either before or during the task force meeting.

  5. Answers to questions posed by Phil

    From prior meeting:

    • Concluded that the URL "" is too broad – it implies all forms of accessibility. Need something more specific.
    • URL used by SSB Bart to provide the service can be different from the URL that UW-Madison users utilize to get to the service. (They will be redirected to the NetID login page, which will in turn redirect them the correct address.)
    • No decision on what either URL should be. 

    From Phil's Oct 1 email:

    • How do we keep the tool open to campus, but keep results of "phase 1" folks separate from anyone else that might come in and run scans?
    • What roles/default permissions/levels of access/etc are available in the system?
    • What would happen if this product expanded licensing to UW-System/UW-System colleges? (could we keep our results, user accounts, etc, or is everything cleared out, etc?
    • What happens when an email address or netid changes? (aka: what continuity does a user account have in the system, and is email address the primary key)


    • In the conference call with SSB Bart, we found answers to the above, essensially, the SSB Bart provisions for user, group and project administration permit us to handle all the scenarios in the above questions, plus:
      • There no need to immediately decide upon a URL for UW-Madison users to use to access AMP.  We can decide later, (before rollout to campus.)

    • The AMP Admin training will be on Oct 30 during our regularly scheduled meeting.

      • We will move the meeting the McBurney Graaskamp room. (That includes moving the Coordinating Group meeting as well.)

      • All members of both the Coordinating Group and Phase I task force will be invited.
      • In addition, we will invite the other two groups that have contacted us to send a representative (Medical School and who?)
      • In addition, Joyce will draft a message inviting  someone from L&S and UW-System to attend the training. 

      • We will ask SSB Bart to record the training for future use.

  6. Need to select a new co-chair
    (Phyllis is stepping down due to work conflicts, but will remain on the team.)
    Action: Deferred   
  7. Communications for Phase I

    From prior meeting:
    • Need to decide what our message is to those who are interested in trying out the tool without joining phase I. Will continue to discuss this at the next meeting.
    • Decided we need to make some kind of announcement soon. People are hearing about it and asking questions.
    • Idea: have a page to direct people to, with answers to questions, project status, etc.
    Action: Laura has notes, and will draft a message for the team to consider in November (note: Oct 30 meeting be the SSB Bart AMP Admin training.) Gary will invite Laura to furture meetings after Oct 30.
  8. Project Management for Phase I

    From previous meeting:
    • Already in place: The tool is being implemented as a DoIT service.
    • The actual tool implementation and the technical and procedural rollout will be managed by the SALT team (Phil has the lead.) This will, (we hope,) eventually include Help Desk support, but not for a while yet. First thing is to get connected with SSB Bart Group and get NetID integrated.
    • We don't want the Phil and the SALT team to be dealing with curious users. We don't expect the SALT team to manage the phase I user community.
    • Managing Phase I and interacting with curious users will be handled by the Phase I Task Force (a.k.a. the Tools Team.) See "Communications for Phase I" above for some more detail on part of what that means.
    • We need to develop more detail to share with prospective Phase I participants.
      • The existing document (Phased Implementation Plan) is high level. Does not contain specifics such as timeline, training, more precise expectations, procedures, etc.
      • One example of something we need: Al is developing a questionaire for Phase I participants to use when reporting results/ideas. 
    • Do we need a project manager?
      • Project (of managing phase I user community) is starting to look too complicated for a team of volunteers who all have full time jobs elsewhere.
      • We can ask DoIT (Chris Holsman) about getting a project manager to assist us.
      • Before we ask, we need to be able to provide more info about what we plan to do, that would justify having a project manager
      • Vince will draft a project description for the team to consider at the next meeting.
    • Decided that we need to insert an approximately 3 month period PRIOR to the beginning of Phase I, during which we will get the tool set up NetID login and an initial configuration that we can use upon entering phase I.
    • The Coodinating Group noted that they (or we) need to decide how to publish documents and procedures for Phase I.
    • Deferred action on other project management decisions.
  9. Membership changes

    From previous meeting:

    • Plan is to add at least one person from each unit participating in Phase I (if not already represented)

    • Some units may have multiple representatives, example: one for content issues/content providers and one for web development issues

    • Question posed but not answered: How large should we let the team become?

    Action: Plan remains the same as above. No decision on limits to team size.

  10. Identifying units for Phase I

    From previous meeting:

    • Al is working on a survey for prospective units to help identify units.

    • Al has a list of people who have contacted him.

    Action: We will not recruit more participants for phase I until the Tool Setup period is nearly completed. That way we can provide more information to prospective participants.

  11. How to interact with the Coordinating Group (if we propose something, we could present it at the 11:00 AM coordinating group meeting that follows)

    From previous meeting:

    • Already defined in the Phase I implementation plan that the task force reports to the Coordinating Group. 

    • Coordinating group is getting bi-weeking status reports from the members who are on both teams.

    • Further discussion was deferred until later.  

    Action: We are depending on the coordinating group to provide guidance on what accessibility criteria should be addressed by "content providers".

  12. Next steps


Future agenda items

  1. Review overall plan: Phase I = a few interested departments, Phase II+ expand to more departments.
    1. Decide what to say to the campus about phase I.
    2. Identify specific departments that are willing to take a role in phase I
  2. Consider specific needs of three different constituencies. What tools (purchased or free) do we initially recommend for each constituency during Phase I?
    • enterprise level users,
    • web developers/web masters, and
    • content providers

Future Meetings:

Phase I Team Members:

Sandi ArendalkowskiDoIT CommPhil JochimsenDoIT EISJames SkempBusiness
Chris ArndtCALSAl Nemec (co-chair)CALSTony TallmadgeCAE
Gary De CluteCIO Office (facilitator)Vince RoseDoIT CommJoyce TikalskyEngineering
John HareDoIT EISCasey SchacherLibraryClint ThayerSMPH
Craig JewelSMPHTodd SchwankeMcBurneyPhyllis TreigeDoIT Comm


File Created Comment


Oct 07, 2014 12:49 2014-08-28 version of implementation phases


  • No labels