View LISTSERV archives

ITACCESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ITACCESS Home

ITACCESS Home

ITACCESS  January 2008

ITACCESS January 2008

Subject:

Re: [Athen] Searching Video Lectures - MIT lecture search engine

From:

"E.A. Draffan" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:06:09 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (3018 lines)

Rather belatedly I am replying as we have had the Bett show all week.  This
a project that Dr Mike Wald has been involved with here in Southampton (UK)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/seminars/72  as the Engineering and Computer
Science department has links with MIT.  Via Scribe is being used by many for
this purpose http://www-03.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/ViaScribe.html  

Best wishes E.A. 

Mrs E.A. Draffan
Learning Societies Lab,
ECS, University of Southampton,
Tel +44 (0)23 8059 7246
http://www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk
http://www.emptech.info


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Saroj Primlani
Sent: 09 January 2008 16:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Athen] Searching Video Lectures - MIT lecture search engine

Have you all heard about this?  I can't find information on the speech
recognition engine.  If this is viable it would a major solution to our
problems, we really need to investigate this.  
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/lectures-tt1107.html

Article in Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19747/page1/

Monday, November 26, 2007
Searching Video Lectures
A tool from MIT finds keywords so that students can efficiently review
lectures.
By Kate Greene
Researchers at MIT have released a video and audio search tool that solves
one of the most challenging problems in the field: how to break up a lengthy
academic lecture into manageable chunks, pinpoint the location of keywords,
and direct the user to them. Announced last month, the MIT Lecture Browser
website gives the general public detailed access to more than 200 lectures
publicly available though the university's OpenCourseWare initiative. The
search engine leverages decades' worth of speech-recognition research at MIT
and other institutions to convert audio into text and make it searchable.

The Lecture Browser arrives at a time when more and more universities,
including Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California,
Berkeley, are posting videos and podcasts of lectures online. While this
content is useful, locating specific information within lectures can be
difficult, frustrating students who are accustomed to finding what they need
in less than a second with Google.

"This is a growing issue for universities around the country as it becomes
easier to record classroom lectures," says Jim Glass, research scientist at
MIT. "It's a real challenge to know how to disseminate them and make it
easier for students to get access to parts of the lecture they might be
interested in. It's like finding a needle in a haystack."

The fundamental elements of the Lecture Browser have been kicking around
research labs at MIT and places such as BBN Technologies in Boston, Carnegie
Mellon, SRI International in Palo Alto, CA, and the University of Southern
California for more than 30 years. Their efforts have produced software
that's finally good enough to find its way to the average person, says
Premkumar Natarajan, scientist at BBN. "There's about three decades of work
where many fundamental problems were addressed," he says. "The technology is
mature enough now that there's a growing sense in the community that it's
time [to test applications in the real world]. We've done all we can in the
lab." 

A handful of companies, such as online audio and video search engines Blinkx
and EveryZing (which has licensed technology from BBN) are making use of
software that converts audio speech into searchable text. (See "Surfing TV
on the Internet" and "More-Accurate Video Search".) But the MIT researchers
faced particular challenges with academic lectures. For one, many lecturers
are not native English speakers, which makes automatic transcription tricky
for systems trained on American English accents. Second, the words favored
in science lectures can be rather obscure. Finally, says Regina Barzilay,
professor of computer Science at MIT, lectures have very little discernable
structure, making them difficult to break up and organize for easy
searching. "Topical transitions are very subtle," she says. "Lectures aren't
organized like normal text."

To tackle these problems, the researchers first configured the software that
converts the audio to text. They trained the software to understand
particular accents using accurate transcriptions of short snippets of
recorded speech. To help the software identify uncommon words--anything from
"drosophila" to "closed-loop integrals"--the researchers provided it with
additional data, such as text from books and lecture notes, which assists
the software in accurately transcribing as many as four out of five words.
If the system is used with a nonnative English speaker whose accent and
vocabulary it hasn't been trained to recognize, the accuracy can drop to 50
percent. (Such a low accuracy would not be useful for direct transcription
but can still be useful for keyword searches.)

The next step, explains Barzilay, is to add structure to the transcribed
words. Software was already available that could break up long strings of
sentences into high-level concepts, but she found that it didn't do the
trick with the lectures. So her group designed its own. "One of the key
distinctions," she says, "is that, during a lecture, you speak freely; you
ramble and mumble." 

To organize the transcribed text, her group created software that breaks the
text into chunks that often correspond with individual sentences. The
software places these chunks in a network structure; chunks that have
similar words or were spoken closely together in time are placed closer
together in the network. The relative distance of the chunks in the network
lets the software decide which sentences belong with each topic or subtopic
in the lecture. 

The result, she says, is a coherent transcription. When a person searches
for a keyword, the browser offers results in the form of a video or audio
timeline that is partitioned into sections. The section of the lecture that
contains the keyword is highlighted; below it are snippets of text that
surround each instance of the keyword. When a video is playing, the browser
shows the transcribed text below it.

Barzilay says that the browser currently receives an average of 21,000 hits
a day, and while it's proving popular, there is still work to be done.
Within the next few months, her team will add a feature that automatically
attaches a text outline to lectures so users can jump to a desired section.
Further ahead, the researchers will give users the ability to make
corrections to the transcript in the same way that people contribute to
Wikipedia. While such improvements seem straightforward, they pose technical
challenges, Barzilay says. "It's not a trivial matter, because you want an
interface that's not tedious, and you need to propagate the correction
throughout the lecture and to other lectures." She says that bringing people
into the transcription loop could improve the accuracy of the system by a
couple percentage points, making user experience even better. 

Copyright Technology Review 2007
_________________________________ 
Saroj Primlani 
Coordinator of University IT Accessibility 
Office of Information Technology
919 513 4087 
http://ncsu.edu/it/access 

-----Original Message-----
From: ITACCESS automatic digest system
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ITACCESS Digest - 2 Jan 2008 to 8 Jan 2008 (#2008-2)

There are 3 messages totalling 2839 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates (3)

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 8 Jan 2008 06:26:13 -0800
From:    Terry Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C851BF.5E6A3040
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Chad, 
 
I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to caption and describe
multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost analysis? (or has
anyone else on the list?) Even a rough itemization of estimated costs would
be great information for any institutions that are considering a centralized
in-house caption/description service. 
 
Thanks, 
Terry
 



  _____  

From: Killingsworth, Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates



Missouri has its own standards. It just happens to be the Section 508
standards with a couple of tweaks (usually lessening the standard). The
standard itself is not written into the law and as such can be changed
without too much headache. There has been some discussion of updating the
standards when the Access Board updates their standards, but as a state we
aren't too thrilled with the idea.

 

The primary problem spot remains multimedia. The cost to an institution of
higher education to be completely compliant is huge. Ignoring content from
our television station, radio station and any athletic events, we estimated
that it would be over $1 million to caption and describe our multimedia
content in a year. In many cases this simply means we tell faculty that they
can't post multimedia content unless they can provide the captioning. In
Missouri, we are in the process of lessening the standard to allow for a
transcript. We are also excluding content in which the audience is
restricted and already has an avenue for a 504 accommodation.

 

The second major problem continues to be procurement. From major vendors
(such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc), we can at least get valid VPAT answers.
However when we start looking at smaller companies we often get VPATs that
show perfect compliance when the actual product isn't even close. As an
example, we recently purchased a web-based ethics violation reporting
system. The vendor (which is used by many Universities and multiple federal
agencies) claimed perfect compliance on their VPAT and was awarded the
contract. As this was a high-profile system, I was asked to do a final
review before the product was rolled out. None of the form fields had
labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab and it was a mess - the
form was completely unusable. We had to threaten legal action to get the
vendor to even partially comply.

 

The new TEITAC recommendations and WCAG 2.0 are going to make the
procurement process worse - not better. For a web-based system, the current
standard has around 20 checkpoints.  With the new standards we're moving to
over 50. How many accurate responses do you think we're going to get now?

 

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

 

From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

Hi Abbie, 

 

The latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has the Advisory
Committee polishing their proposal in early January, then presenting it to
the Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate on what happens to
it after that. It will be interesting to monitor. Here's a more detailed
delivery plan: 

http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_Deliverables
_Plan

 

I personally like that the recommended new standards have abandoned grouping
IT products into six distinct categories, which is how the current standards
document is organized. This has been an area of some confusion with the
current version as the line between categories is often blurry (e.g., if
it's an interactive web-based multimedia application, does it need to comply
with web, software, or multimedia standards?)  

 

I also like that the advisory committee has worked closely with the W3C, and
many of the 508 standards  are "harmonized with WCAG 2.0". Hopepfully this
harmonization will continue as both sets of standards move forward in 2008 -
It will be nice to have these two sets of standards more closely aligned. 

 

Do Missouri's state standards (or any other states that have adopted 508
standards) include language that addresses whether the state standards are
automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would assume states might find
that risky adopting something they haven't seen, but the alternative is for
states to start over with their adoption process anytime there's a federal
update. 

 

Interestingly, Washington's state Information Services Board adopted Section
508 standards across all categories of IT except Web, in which they adopted
Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is finalized, then WCAG 2.0 will
become the standard. Although awkward, I can see the logic of this approach
given that WCAG 2.0 is much more comprehensive and current than the original
508 web standards, but it stops making sense if the new 508 standards are
harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect our state ISB will have to start over. 

 

What are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing? 

 

Terry

Terry Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist
DO-IT, Computing & Communications
University of Washington
[log in to unmask]
206/221-4168 


  _____  


From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

What happened at the Nov 12th meeting of the TEITAC committee?

Abbie

 

From: Killingsworth, Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

Have any of you been following the proposed updates to the Section 508
standards? Many institutions are subject to these standards by state laws
which adopt the federal standards. I recently was given the option to
comment on the draft by our state assistive technology director who is a
member of the TEITAC Committee drafting the standards. 

 

The latest working draft of the standards can be found at
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26 

 

This draft is a substantial departure from the current standard in that it
combines what used be separate standards/checkpoints for each product type
into a single list. This has some pretty big implications for a procurement
process - especially since we already have enough trouble getting valid
answers back from a vendor.

 

I'd be interested in other institutions thoughts on the matter. The final
meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November 12.

 

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 


**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C851BF.5E6A3040
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt =3D=20
"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s =3D=20
"uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z =3D "#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b =
=3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html =3D=20
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q =3D=20
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" XMLNS:D =3D "DAV:" xmlns:x2 =
=3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds =3D=20
"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd =3D=20
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sps =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi =3D=20
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver =3D=20
"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m =
=3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels =3D=20
"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" =
xmlns:ex12t =3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m =
=3D=20
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
	font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
	font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
	font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Calibri","sans-serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Calibri","sans-serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Calibri","sans-serif"
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-top-alt: =
auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
	COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-style-type: =
personal
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
	COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type:
=
personal
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
	COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type:
=
personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
	FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=3DEN-US vLink=3Dpurple link=3Dblue>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008>Hi Chad, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008>I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to =
caption=20
and describe multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost =
analysis?=20
(or has anyone else on the list?)&nbsp;Even a rough itemization of =
estimated=20
costs would be great information for any institutions that are =
considering a=20
centralized in-house caption/description&nbsp;service. =
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008>Thanks, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008>Terry</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D531225413-08012008></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Killingsworth, Chad=20
  [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> =
Wednesday,=20
  January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ITACCESS] =
Section 508=20
  Access Board Standards - Draft Updates<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DSection1>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">Missouri has its =
own=20
  standards. It just happens to be the Section 508 standards with a =
couple of=20
  tweaks (usually lessening the standard). The standard itself is not =
written=20
  into the law and as such can be changed without too much headache. =
There has=20
  been some discussion of updating the standards when the Access Board =
updates=20
  their standards, but as a state we aren&#8217;t too thrilled with the=20
  idea.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">The primary =
problem spot=20
  remains multimedia. The cost to an institution of higher education to =
be=20
  completely compliant is huge. Ignoring content from our television =
station,=20
  radio station and any athletic events, we estimated that it would be =
over $1=20
  million to caption and describe our multimedia content in a year. In =
many=20
  cases this simply means we tell faculty that they can&#8217;t post =
multimedia=20
  content unless they can provide the captioning. In Missouri, we are in =
the=20
  process of lessening the standard to allow for a transcript. We are =
also=20
  excluding content in which the audience is restricted and already has =
an=20
  avenue for a 504 accommodation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">The second major =
problem=20
  continues to be procurement. From major vendors (such as Microsoft, =
Adobe,=20
  etc), we can at least get valid VPAT answers. However when we start =
looking at=20
  smaller companies we often get VPATs that show perfect compliance when =
the=20
  actual product isn&#8217;t even close. As an example, we recently =
purchased a=20
  web-based ethics violation reporting system. The vendor (which is used =
by many=20
  Universities and multiple federal agencies) claimed perfect compliance =
on=20
  their VPAT and was awarded the contract. As this was a high-profile =
system, I=20
  was asked to do a final review before the product was rolled out. None =
of the=20
  form fields had labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab =
and it was=20
  a mess &#8211; the form was completely unusable. We had to threaten =
legal action to=20
  get the vendor to even partially comply.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">The new TEITAC =
recommendations=20
  and WCAG 2.0 are going to make the procurement process worse &#8211; =
not better. For=20
  a web-based system, the current standard has around 20 checkpoints. =
&nbsp;With=20
  the new standards we&#8217;re moving to over 50. How many accurate =
responses do you=20
  think we&#8217;re going to get now?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
  <DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">Chad=20
  Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">Web Projects=20
  Coordinator<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">Missouri State=20
  University<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
  <DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: =
#b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: =
medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><B><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> Terry =
Thompson=20
  [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 21, =
2007 4:22=20
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: =

  [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft=20
  Updates<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">Hi=20
  Abbie, </SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">The=20
  latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has the Advisory =
Committee=20
  polishing their proposal in early January, then presenting it to the =
Access=20
  Board on January 9. I can't really speculate on what happens to it =
after that.=20
  It will be interesting to monitor. Here's a more detailed delivery =
plan:=20
  </SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'"><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_D=
eliverables_Plan">http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meet=
ings_and_Deliverables_Plan</A></SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">I=20
  personally like that the recommended new standards have abandoned =
grouping IT=20
  products into six distinct categories, which is how the current =
standards=20
  document is organized. This has been an area of some confusion with =
the=20
  current version as the line between categories is often blurry (e.g., =
if it's=20
  an interactive&nbsp;web-based multimedia application, does it need to =
comply=20
  with web, software, or multimedia standards?)&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">I also=20
  like that the advisory committee has worked closely with the W3C, and =
many of=20
  the 508 standards&nbsp; are "harmonized with WCAG 2.0". Hopepfully =
this=20
  harmonization will continue as both sets of standards move forward in =
2008 -=20
  It will be nice to have these two sets of standards more closely=20
  aligned.&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">Do&nbsp;Missouri's=20
  state standards (or any other states that have adopted 508 standards) =
include=20
  language that addresses whether the state standards are automatically =
updated=20
  in parallel with 508? I would assume states might find that risky =
adopting=20
  something they haven't seen, but the alternative is for states to =
start over=20
  with their adoption process anytime there's a federal update. =
</SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">Interestingly,=20
  Washington's state Information Services Board&nbsp;adopted Section 508 =

  standards across all categories of IT except&nbsp;Web,&nbsp;in which =
they=20
  adopted Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is finalized, then WCAG =
2.0=20
  will become the standard.&nbsp;Although awkward, I can see the logic =
of this=20
  approach given that WCAG 2.0 is much more comprehensive and current =
than the=20
  original 508 web standards, but it stops making sense if the new 508 =
standards=20
  are harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect our state ISB will have to =
start over.=20
  </SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">What=20
  are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing? </SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Arial','sans-serif'">Terry</SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Terry Thompson<BR>Technology =
Accessibility=20
  Specialist<BR>DO-IT, Computing &amp; Communications<BR>University of=20
  Washington<BR>[log in to unmask]<BR>206/221-4168 =
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
  <DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" =
align=3Dcenter><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">
  <HR align=3Dcenter width=3D"100%" SIZE=3D2>
  </SPAN></DIV>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> =
OSullivan,=20
  Abigail R. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, =
December=20
  21, 2007 1:30 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ITACCESS] =
Section 508=20
  Access Board Standards - Draft Updates</SPAN><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <BLOCKQUOTE=20
  style=3D"BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: =
medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt =
3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: =
medium none">
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: #1f497d">What happened at =
the Nov=20
    12<SUP>th</SUP> meeting of the TEITAC =
committee?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d">Abbie<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
#1f497d"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
    <DIV>
    <DIV=20
    style=3D"BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: =
#b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: =
medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><B><SPAN=20
    style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN=20
    style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> =
Killingsworth,=20
    Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> =
Thursday,=20
    November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
    [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ITACCESS] Section =
508=20
    Access Board Standards - Draft =
Updates<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>Have any of you been following the proposed =
updates to=20
    the Section 508 standards? Many institutions are subject to these =
standards=20
    by state laws which adopt the federal standards. I recently was =
given the=20
    option to comment on the draft by our state assistive technology =
director=20
    who is a member of the TEITAC Committee drafting the standards.=20
    <o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>The latest working draft of the standards can =
be found at=20
    <A=20
    =
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26">http://teitac.org/wiki/E=
WG:Draft_Oct_26</A>=20
    <o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>This draft is a substantial departure from the =
current=20
    standard in that it combines what used be separate =
standards/checkpoints for=20
    each product type into a single list. This has some pretty big =
implications=20
    for a procurement process &#8211; especially since we already have =
enough trouble=20
    getting valid answers back from a vendor.<o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>I&#8217;d be interested in other institutions =
thoughts on the=20
    matter. The final meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November=20
    12.<o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>Chad Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>Web Projects Coordinator<o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal>Missouri State University<o:p></o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
    style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">**********=20
    Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE =
Constituent=20
    Group discussion list can be found at =
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20
    <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
    <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
    style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">**********=20
    Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE =
Constituent=20
    Group discussion list can be found at =
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20
    <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman','serif'">**********=20
  Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE =
Constituent Group=20
  discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20
  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>********** Participation and subscription=20
  information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be =
found=20
  at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C851BF.5E6A3040--

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:48:59 -0600
From:    "Killingsworth, Chad" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C85205.9B56886C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We have limited in house capabilities for transcription and none at all
for captioning/describing. The estimate was based on an extremely rough
estimate of content hours produced times an outsourced rate for
captioning/describing. We informally requested bids for this service
from a few companies as research for hiring a new person to help with
online video and flash. By request, we shared this information with our
state liaison who is also a member of the TEITAC committee. She was
going to use the information to help make it clear to TEITAC and the
Access Board what financial implications the standards have on
educational institutions. The main fear was that states would not be
able to meet compliance on this one area and so simply choose not to
work on any of the other checkpoints either - even though most of those
have a MUCH smaller fiscal impact.

=20

A few years ago, we estimated that to do the same thing in-house would
cost approximately $200,000. At that time, we were producing less
content than we do now and we realized that the resources created by
that money were not sufficient to cover all of the content. We proposed
captioning content as we could using a prioritization based on the
potential audience of the content. This entire proposal was not funded.

=20

Neither of these proposals covered any live content. We have been told
that even if we had the funds, it would be very difficult to hire
someone to caption/describe live content as the number of qualified
persons is extremely small and in very high demand.

=20

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

=20

From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft
Updates

=20

Hi Chad,=20

=20

I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to caption and describe
multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost analysis? (or
has anyone else on the list?) Even a rough itemization of estimated
costs would be great information for any institutions that are
considering a centralized in-house caption/description service.=20

=20

Thanks,=20

Terry

=20

	=20

=09
________________________________


	From: Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
	Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards -
Draft Updates

	Missouri has its own standards. It just happens to be the
Section 508 standards with a couple of tweaks (usually lessening the
standard). The standard itself is not written into the law and as such
can be changed without too much headache. There has been some discussion
of updating the standards when the Access Board updates their standards,
but as a state we aren't too thrilled with the idea.

	=20

	The primary problem spot remains multimedia. The cost to an
institution of higher education to be completely compliant is huge.
Ignoring content from our television station, radio station and any
athletic events, we estimated that it would be over $1 million to
caption and describe our multimedia content in a year. In many cases
this simply means we tell faculty that they can't post multimedia
content unless they can provide the captioning. In Missouri, we are in
the process of lessening the standard to allow for a transcript. We are
also excluding content in which the audience is restricted and already
has an avenue for a 504 accommodation.

	=20

	The second major problem continues to be procurement. From major
vendors (such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc), we can at least get valid VPAT
answers. However when we start looking at smaller companies we often get
VPATs that show perfect compliance when the actual product isn't even
close. As an example, we recently purchased a web-based ethics violation
reporting system. The vendor (which is used by many Universities and
multiple federal agencies) claimed perfect compliance on their VPAT and
was awarded the contract. As this was a high-profile system, I was asked
to do a final review before the product was rolled out. None of the form
fields had labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab and it
was a mess - the form was completely unusable. We had to threaten legal
action to get the vendor to even partially comply.

	=20

	The new TEITAC recommendations and WCAG 2.0 are going to make
the procurement process worse - not better. For a web-based system, the
current standard has around 20 checkpoints.  With the new standards
we're moving to over 50. How many accurate responses do you think we're
going to get now?

	=20

	Chad Killingsworth

	Web Projects Coordinator

	Missouri State University

	=20

	From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
	Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards -
Draft Updates

	=20

	Hi Abbie,=20

	=20

	The latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has the
Advisory Committee polishing their proposal in early January, then
presenting it to the Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate
on what happens to it after that. It will be interesting to monitor.
Here's a more detailed delivery plan:=20

=09
http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_Delivera
bles_Plan

	=20

	I personally like that the recommended new standards have
abandoned grouping IT products into six distinct categories, which is
how the current standards document is organized. This has been an area
of some confusion with the current version as the line between
categories is often blurry (e.g., if it's an interactive web-based
multimedia application, does it need to comply with web, software, or
multimedia standards?) =20

	=20

	I also like that the advisory committee has worked closely with
the W3C, and many of the 508 standards  are "harmonized with WCAG 2.0".
Hopepfully this harmonization will continue as both sets of standards
move forward in 2008 - It will be nice to have these two sets of
standards more closely aligned.=20

	=20

	Do Missouri's state standards (or any other states that have
adopted 508 standards) include language that addresses whether the state
standards are automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would assume
states might find that risky adopting something they haven't seen, but
the alternative is for states to start over with their adoption process
anytime there's a federal update.=20

	=20

	Interestingly, Washington's state Information Services Board
adopted Section 508 standards across all categories of IT except Web, in
which they adopted Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is finalized,
then WCAG 2.0 will become the standard. Although awkward, I can see the
logic of this approach given that WCAG 2.0 is much more comprehensive
and current than the original 508 web standards, but it stops making
sense if the new 508 standards are harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect
our state ISB will have to start over.=20

	=20

	What are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing?=20

	=20

	Terry

	Terry Thompson
	Technology Accessibility Specialist
	DO-IT, Computing & Communications
	University of Washington
	[log in to unmask]
	206/221-4168=20

=09
________________________________


	From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
	Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards -
Draft Updates

		What happened at the Nov 12th meeting of the TEITAC
committee?

		Abbie

		=20

		From: Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
		Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Subject: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards -
Draft Updates

		=20

		Have any of you been following the proposed updates to
the Section 508 standards? Many institutions are subject to these
standards by state laws which adopt the federal standards. I recently
was given the option to comment on the draft by our state assistive
technology director who is a member of the TEITAC Committee drafting the
standards.=20

		=20

		The latest working draft of the standards can be found
at http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26=20

		=20

		This draft is a substantial departure from the current
standard in that it combines what used be separate standards/checkpoints
for each product type into a single list. This has some pretty big
implications for a procurement process - especially since we already
have enough trouble getting valid answers back from a vendor.

		=20

		I'd be interested in other institutions thoughts on the
matter. The final meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November 12.

		=20

		Chad Killingsworth

		Web Projects Coordinator

		Missouri State University

		=20

		********** Participation and subscription information
for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20

		********** Participation and subscription information
for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20

	********** Participation and subscription information for this
EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20

	********** Participation and subscription information for this
EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.=20


**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C85205.9B56886C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" =
xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" =
xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" =
xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:s=3D"uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" =
xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" =
xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" =
xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" =
xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" =
xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" =
xmlns:ois=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" =
xmlns:dir=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" =
xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" =
xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" =
xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" =
xmlns:xsd=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" =
xmlns:sps=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" =
xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" =
xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" =
xmlns:wf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" =
xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006=
" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationshi=
ps" =
xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"=
 =
xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messag=
es" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>We have limited in =
house
capabilities for transcription and none at all for =
captioning/describing. The
estimate was based on an extremely rough estimate of content hours =
produced
times an outsourced rate for captioning/describing. We informally =
requested
bids for this service from a few companies as research for hiring a new =
person
to help with online video and flash. By request, we shared this =
information
with our state liaison who is also a member of the TEITAC committee. She =
was
going to use the information to help make it clear to TEITAC and the =
Access
Board what financial implications the standards have on educational
institutions. The main fear was that states would not be able to meet
compliance on this one area and so simply choose not to work on any of =
the
other checkpoints either &#8211; even though most of those have a MUCH =
smaller
fiscal impact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>A few years ago, we =
estimated
that to do the same thing in-house would cost approximately $200,000. At =
that
time, we were producing less content than we do now and we realized that =
the
resources created by that money were not sufficient to cover all of the
content. We proposed captioning content as we could using a =
prioritization
based on the potential audience of the content. This entire proposal was =
not
funded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Neither of these =
proposals
covered any live content. We have been told that even if we had the =
funds, it
would be very difficult to hire someone to caption/describe live content =
as the
number of qualified persons is extremely small and in very high =
demand.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Chad =
Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Web Projects =
Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri State =
University<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Terry =
Thompson
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Hi Chad, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to caption and =
describe
multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost analysis? (or =
has
anyone else on the list?)&nbsp;Even a rough itemization of estimated =
costs
would be great information for any institutions that are considering a
centralized in-house caption/description&nbsp;service. </span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Thanks, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Terry</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>

</span></div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Killingsworth, Chad =
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates</span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri has its own =
standards.
It just happens to be the Section 508 standards with a couple of tweaks
(usually lessening the standard). The standard itself is not written =
into the
law and as such can be changed without too much headache. There has been =
some
discussion of updating the standards when the Access Board updates their
standards, but as a state we aren&#8217;t too thrilled with the =
idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The primary problem =
spot remains
multimedia. The cost to an institution of higher education to be =
completely
compliant is huge. Ignoring content from our television station, radio =
station
and any athletic events, we estimated that it would be over $1 million =
to
caption and describe our multimedia content in a year. In many cases =
this
simply means we tell faculty that they can&#8217;t post multimedia =
content
unless they can provide the captioning. In Missouri, we are in the =
process of
lessening the standard to allow for a transcript. We are also excluding =
content
in which the audience is restricted and already has an avenue for a 504
accommodation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The second major =
problem continues
to be procurement. From major vendors (such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc), =
we can
at least get valid VPAT answers. However when we start looking at =
smaller
companies we often get VPATs that show perfect compliance when the =
actual
product isn&#8217;t even close. As an example, we recently purchased a
web-based ethics violation reporting system. The vendor (which is used =
by many
Universities and multiple federal agencies) claimed perfect compliance =
on their
VPAT and was awarded the contract. As this was a high-profile system, I =
was
asked to do a final review before the product was rolled out. None of =
the form
fields had labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab and it =
was a
mess &#8211; the form was completely unusable. We had to threaten legal =
action
to get the vendor to even partially comply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The new TEITAC =
recommendations
and WCAG 2.0 are going to make the procurement process worse &#8211; not
better. For a web-based system, the current standard has around 20 =
checkpoints.
&nbsp;With the new standards we&#8217;re moving to over 50. How many =
accurate
responses do you think we&#8217;re going to get =
now?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Chad =
Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Web Projects =
Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri State =
University<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Terry =
Thompson
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Hi Abbie, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>The latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has =
the
Advisory Committee polishing their proposal in early January, then =
presenting
it to the Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate on what =
happens
to it after that. It will be interesting to monitor. Here's a more =
detailed
delivery plan: </span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><a
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_D=
eliverables_Plan">http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meet=
ings_and_Deliverables_Plan</a></span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I personally like that the recommended new standards have =
abandoned
grouping IT products into six distinct categories, which is how the =
current
standards document is organized. This has been an area of some confusion =
with
the current version as the line between categories is often blurry =
(e.g., if
it's an interactive&nbsp;web-based multimedia application, does it need =
to
comply with web, software, or multimedia =
standards?)&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I also like that the advisory committee has worked closely =
with the
W3C, and many of the 508 standards&nbsp; are &quot;harmonized with WCAG
2.0&quot;. Hopepfully this harmonization will continue as both sets of
standards move forward in 2008 - It will be nice to have these two sets =
of
standards more closely aligned.&nbsp;</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Do&nbsp;Missouri's state standards (or any other states that =
have
adopted 508 standards) include language that addresses whether the state
standards are automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would assume =
states
might find that risky adopting something they haven't seen, but the =
alternative
is for states to start over with their adoption process anytime there's =
a
federal update. </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Interestingly, Washington's state Information Services
Board&nbsp;adopted Section 508 standards across all categories of IT
except&nbsp;Web,&nbsp;in which they adopted Section 508 temporarily =
until WCAG
2.0 is finalized, then WCAG 2.0 will become the standard.&nbsp;Although =
awkward,
I can see the logic of this approach given that WCAG 2.0 is much more
comprehensive and current than the original 508 web standards, but it =
stops
making sense if the new 508 standards are harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I =
suspect
our state ISB will have to start over. </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>What are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing? =
</span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Terry</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Terry Thompson<br>
Technology Accessibility Specialist<br>
DO-IT, Computing &amp; Communications<br>
University of Washington<br>
[log in to unmask]<br>
206/221-4168 </span><o:p></o:p></p>

<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>

</span></div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> OSullivan, Abigail R.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates</span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>What happened at the =
Nov 12<sup>th</sup>
meeting of the TEITAC committee?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Abbie<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft =
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Have any of you been following the proposed updates =
to the
Section 508 standards? Many institutions are subject to these standards =
by
state laws which adopt the federal standards. I recently was given the =
option
to comment on the draft by our state assistive technology director who =
is a
member of the TEITAC Committee drafting the standards. <o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>The latest working draft of the standards can be =
found at <a
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26">http://teitac.org/wiki/E=
WG:Draft_Oct_26</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>This draft is a substantial departure from the =
current
standard in that it combines what used be separate standards/checkpoints =
for
each product type into a single list. This has some pretty big =
implications for
a procurement process &#8211; especially since we already have enough =
trouble
getting valid answers back from a vendor.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>I&#8217;d be interested in other institutions =
thoughts on
the matter. The final meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November =
12.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Chad Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Web Projects Coordinator<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Missouri State University<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</blockquote>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</blockquote>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C85205.9B56886C--

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:26:13 -0500
From:    Ron Stewart <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01FF_01C851E0.E6FF3BF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good morning,

 

Based on the experiences from my program at Oregon State the typical cost to
caption educational content in-house ended up being conservatively about
$300 for each hour of video transcribed.  This is based on an average of 12
hours of labor for the transcription and subtitling of the video at a total
resource cost of $25.00 per hour.  This was the average for the ~400 hours
of video that had been completed when I left Oregon State in mid 2006.

 

If more detail is wanted about the program or its operation please contact
me off list.

 

Ron Stewart

Technology Advisor

Association on Higher Education and Disability.

 

From: Killingsworth, Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

We have limited in house capabilities for transcription and none at all for
captioning/describing. The estimate was based on an extremely rough estimate
of content hours produced times an outsourced rate for
captioning/describing. We informally requested bids for this service from a
few companies as research for hiring a new person to help with online video
and flash. By request, we shared this information with our state liaison who
is also a member of the TEITAC committee. She was going to use the
information to help make it clear to TEITAC and the Access Board what
financial implications the standards have on educational institutions. The
main fear was that states would not be able to meet compliance on this one
area and so simply choose not to work on any of the other checkpoints either
- even though most of those have a MUCH smaller fiscal impact.

 

A few years ago, we estimated that to do the same thing in-house would cost
approximately $200,000. At that time, we were producing less content than we
do now and we realized that the resources created by that money were not
sufficient to cover all of the content. We proposed captioning content as we
could using a prioritization based on the potential audience of the content.
This entire proposal was not funded.

 

Neither of these proposals covered any live content. We have been told that
even if we had the funds, it would be very difficult to hire someone to
caption/describe live content as the number of qualified persons is
extremely small and in very high demand.

 

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

 

From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

Hi Chad, 

 

I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to caption and describe
multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost analysis? (or has
anyone else on the list?) Even a rough itemization of estimated costs would
be great information for any institutions that are considering a centralized
in-house caption/description service. 

 

Thanks, 

Terry

 

 


  _____  


From: Killingsworth, Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

Missouri has its own standards. It just happens to be the Section 508
standards with a couple of tweaks (usually lessening the standard). The
standard itself is not written into the law and as such can be changed
without too much headache. There has been some discussion of updating the
standards when the Access Board updates their standards, but as a state we
aren't too thrilled with the idea.

 

The primary problem spot remains multimedia. The cost to an institution of
higher education to be completely compliant is huge. Ignoring content from
our television station, radio station and any athletic events, we estimated
that it would be over $1 million to caption and describe our multimedia
content in a year. In many cases this simply means we tell faculty that they
can't post multimedia content unless they can provide the captioning. In
Missouri, we are in the process of lessening the standard to allow for a
transcript. We are also excluding content in which the audience is
restricted and already has an avenue for a 504 accommodation.

 

The second major problem continues to be procurement. From major vendors
(such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc), we can at least get valid VPAT answers.
However when we start looking at smaller companies we often get VPATs that
show perfect compliance when the actual product isn't even close. As an
example, we recently purchased a web-based ethics violation reporting
system. The vendor (which is used by many Universities and multiple federal
agencies) claimed perfect compliance on their VPAT and was awarded the
contract. As this was a high-profile system, I was asked to do a final
review before the product was rolled out. None of the form fields had
labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab and it was a mess - the
form was completely unusable. We had to threaten legal action to get the
vendor to even partially comply.

 

The new TEITAC recommendations and WCAG 2.0 are going to make the
procurement process worse - not better. For a web-based system, the current
standard has around 20 checkpoints.  With the new standards we're moving to
over 50. How many accurate responses do you think we're going to get now?

 

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

 

From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

Hi Abbie, 

 

The latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has the Advisory
Committee polishing their proposal in early January, then presenting it to
the Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate on what happens to
it after that. It will be interesting to monitor. Here's a more detailed
delivery plan: 

http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_Deliverables
_Plan

 

I personally like that the recommended new standards have abandoned grouping
IT products into six distinct categories, which is how the current standards
document is organized. This has been an area of some confusion with the
current version as the line between categories is often blurry (e.g., if
it's an interactive web-based multimedia application, does it need to comply
with web, software, or multimedia standards?)  

 

I also like that the advisory committee has worked closely with the W3C, and
many of the 508 standards  are "harmonized with WCAG 2.0". Hopepfully this
harmonization will continue as both sets of standards move forward in 2008 -
It will be nice to have these two sets of standards more closely aligned. 

 

Do Missouri's state standards (or any other states that have adopted 508
standards) include language that addresses whether the state standards are
automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would assume states might find
that risky adopting something they haven't seen, but the alternative is for
states to start over with their adoption process anytime there's a federal
update. 

 

Interestingly, Washington's state Information Services Board adopted Section
508 standards across all categories of IT except Web, in which they adopted
Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is finalized, then WCAG 2.0 will
become the standard. Although awkward, I can see the logic of this approach
given that WCAG 2.0 is much more comprehensive and current than the original
508 web standards, but it stops making sense if the new 508 standards are
harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect our state ISB will have to start over. 

 

What are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing? 

 

Terry

Terry Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist
DO-IT, Computing & Communications
University of Washington
[log in to unmask]
206/221-4168 


  _____  


From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

What happened at the Nov 12th meeting of the TEITAC committee?

Abbie

 

From: Killingsworth, Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

 

Have any of you been following the proposed updates to the Section 508
standards? Many institutions are subject to these standards by state laws
which adopt the federal standards. I recently was given the option to
comment on the draft by our state assistive technology director who is a
member of the TEITAC Committee drafting the standards. 

 

The latest working draft of the standards can be found at
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26 

 

This draft is a substantial departure from the current standard in that it
combines what used be separate standards/checkpoints for each product type
into a single list. This has some pretty big implications for a procurement
process - especially since we already have enough trouble getting valid
answers back from a vendor.

 

I'd be interested in other institutions thoughts on the matter. The final
meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November 12.

 

Chad Killingsworth

Web Projects Coordinator

Missouri State University

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. 


**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------=_NextPart_000_01FF_01C851E0.E6FF3BF0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" =
xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" =
xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" =
xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:s=3D"uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" =
xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" =
xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" =
xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" =
xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" =
xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" =
xmlns:ois=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" =
xmlns:dir=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" =
xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" =
xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" =
xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" =
xmlns:xsd=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" =
xmlns:sps=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" =
xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" =
xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" =
xmlns:wf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" =
xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006=
" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationshi=
ps" =
xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"=
 =
xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messag=
es" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Good =
morning,<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Based on the =
experiences from my
program at Oregon State the typical cost to caption educational content
in-house ended up being conservatively about $300 for each hour of video
transcribed.&nbsp; This is based on an average of 12 hours of labor for =
the
transcription and subtitling of the video at a total resource cost of =
$25.00
per hour.&nbsp; This was the average for the ~400 hours of video that =
had been
completed when I left Oregon State in mid 2006.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>If more detail is =
wanted about
the program or its operation please contact me off =
list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Ron =
Stewart<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Technology =
Advisor<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Association on Higher =
Education
and Disability.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>We have limited in =
house
capabilities for transcription and none at all for =
captioning/describing. The
estimate was based on an extremely rough estimate of content hours =
produced
times an outsourced rate for captioning/describing. We informally =
requested
bids for this service from a few companies as research for hiring a new =
person
to help with online video and flash. By request, we shared this =
information
with our state liaison who is also a member of the TEITAC committee. She =
was going
to use the information to help make it clear to TEITAC and the Access =
Board
what financial implications the standards have on educational =
institutions. The
main fear was that states would not be able to meet compliance on this =
one area
and so simply choose not to work on any of the other checkpoints either =
&#8211;
even though most of those have a MUCH smaller fiscal =
impact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>A few years ago, we =
estimated
that to do the same thing in-house would cost approximately $200,000. At =
that
time, we were producing less content than we do now and we realized that =
the
resources created by that money were not sufficient to cover all of the
content. We proposed captioning content as we could using a =
prioritization
based on the potential audience of the content. This entire proposal was =
not
funded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Neither of these =
proposals
covered any live content. We have been told that even if we had the =
funds, it
would be very difficult to hire someone to caption/describe live content =
as the
number of qualified persons is extremely small and in very high =
demand.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Chad =
Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Web Projects =
Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri State =
University<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Terry =
Thompson
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Hi Chad, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I'm curious about your $1 million estimate to caption and =
describe
multimedia content for a year. Did you actually do a cost analysis? (or =
has
anyone else on the list?)&nbsp;Even a rough itemization of estimated =
costs
would be great information for any institutions that are considering a
centralized in-house caption/description&nbsp;service. </span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Thanks, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Terry</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>

</span></div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates</span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri has its own =
standards.
It just happens to be the Section 508 standards with a couple of tweaks
(usually lessening the standard). The standard itself is not written =
into the
law and as such can be changed without too much headache. There has been =
some
discussion of updating the standards when the Access Board updates their
standards, but as a state we aren&#8217;t too thrilled with the =
idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The primary problem =
spot remains
multimedia. The cost to an institution of higher education to be =
completely
compliant is huge. Ignoring content from our television station, radio =
station
and any athletic events, we estimated that it would be over $1 million =
to
caption and describe our multimedia content in a year. In many cases =
this
simply means we tell faculty that they can&#8217;t post multimedia =
content
unless they can provide the captioning. In Missouri, we are in the =
process of
lessening the standard to allow for a transcript. We are also excluding =
content
in which the audience is restricted and already has an avenue for a 504
accommodation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The second major =
problem
continues to be procurement. From major vendors (such as Microsoft, =
Adobe,
etc), we can at least get valid VPAT answers. However when we start =
looking at
smaller companies we often get VPATs that show perfect compliance when =
the
actual product isn&#8217;t even close. As an example, we recently =
purchased a
web-based ethics violation reporting system. The vendor (which is used =
by many
Universities and multiple federal agencies) claimed perfect compliance =
on their
VPAT and was awarded the contract. As this was a high-profile system, I =
was
asked to do a final review before the product was rolled out. None of =
the form
fields had labels. I went and tested the product on our AT lab and it =
was a
mess &#8211; the form was completely unusable. We had to threaten legal =
action
to get the vendor to even partially comply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>The new TEITAC =
recommendations
and WCAG 2.0 are going to make the procurement process worse &#8211; not
better. For a web-based system, the current standard has around 20 =
checkpoints.
&nbsp;With the new standards we&#8217;re moving to over 50. How many =
accurate
responses do you think we&#8217;re going to get =
now?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Chad =
Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Web Projects =
Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Missouri State =
University<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Terry =
Thompson
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Hi Abbie, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>The latest delivery plan for the Section 508 standards has =
the
Advisory Committee polishing their proposal in early January, then =
presenting
it to the Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate on what =
happens
to it after that. It will be interesting to monitor. Here's a more =
detailed
delivery plan: </span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><a
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_D=
eliverables_Plan">http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meet=
ings_and_Deliverables_Plan</a></span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I personally like that the recommended new standards have =
abandoned
grouping IT products into six distinct categories, which is how the =
current
standards document is organized. This has been an area of some confusion =
with
the current version as the line between categories is often blurry =
(e.g., if
it's an interactive&nbsp;web-based multimedia application, does it need =
to
comply with web, software, or multimedia =
standards?)&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I also like that the advisory committee has worked closely =
with the
W3C, and many of the 508 standards&nbsp; are &quot;harmonized with WCAG
2.0&quot;. Hopepfully this harmonization will continue as both sets of
standards move forward in 2008 - It will be nice to have these two sets =
of
standards more closely aligned.&nbsp;</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Do&nbsp;Missouri's state standards (or any other states that =
have
adopted 508 standards) include language that addresses whether the state
standards are automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would assume =
states
might find that risky adopting something they haven't seen, but the =
alternative
is for states to start over with their adoption process anytime there's =
a
federal update. </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Interestingly, Washington's state Information Services
Board&nbsp;adopted Section 508 standards across all categories of IT
except&nbsp;Web,&nbsp;in which they adopted Section 508 temporarily =
until WCAG
2.0 is finalized, then WCAG 2.0 will become the standard.&nbsp;Although
awkward, I can see the logic of this approach given that WCAG 2.0 is =
much more
comprehensive and current than the original 508 web standards, but it =
stops making
sense if the new 508 standards are harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect =
our
state ISB will have to start over. </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>What are other states that have adopted 508 standards doing? =
</span><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Terry</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Terry Thompson<br>
Technology Accessibility Specialist<br>
DO-IT, Computing &amp; Communications<br>
University of Washington<br>
[log in to unmask]<br>
206/221-4168 </span><o:p></o:p></p>

<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>

</span></div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> OSullivan, Abigail R.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - =
Draft
Updates</span><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>What happened at the =
Nov 12<sup>th</sup>
meeting of the TEITAC committee?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Abbie<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
Killingsworth, Chad
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft =
Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Have any of you been following the proposed updates =
to the
Section 508 standards? Many institutions are subject to these standards =
by
state laws which adopt the federal standards. I recently was given the =
option to
comment on the draft by our state assistive technology director who is a =
member
of the TEITAC Committee drafting the standards. <o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>The latest working draft of the standards can be =
found at <a
href=3D"http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26">http://teitac.org/wiki/E=
WG:Draft_Oct_26</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>This draft is a substantial departure from the =
current
standard in that it combines what used be separate standards/checkpoints =
for
each product type into a single list. This has some pretty big =
implications for
a procurement process &#8211; especially since we already have enough =
trouble
getting valid answers back from a vendor.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>I&#8217;d be interested in other institutions =
thoughts on
the matter. The final meeting of the TEITAC Committee is November =
12.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Chad Killingsworth<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Web Projects Coordinator<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Missouri State University<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</blockquote>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</blockquote>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times =
New Roman","serif"'>**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent =
Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

------=_NextPart_000_01FF_01C851E0.E6FF3BF0--

------------------------------

End of ITACCESS Digest - 2 Jan 2008 to 8 Jan 2008 (#2008-2)
***********************************************************



_______________________________________________
Athen mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://athenpro.org/mailman/listinfo/athen_athenpro.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1214 - Release Date: 08/01/2008
13:38
 

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave ITACCESS

Join or Leave ITACCESS


Archives

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007

ATOM RSS1 RSS2