[Athen] Athen Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6

Saroj Primlani saroj_primlani at ncsu.edu
Sat Jan 12 12:14:11 PST 2008


Hi all,
My experience with Via Scribe has not been very good. The accuracy
remained around 90+ %, not good enough for transcripts as it required
manual editing. What I was intrigued by the MIT solution was not only
their grasp of all the variable when recording classroom lectures, but
their approach as how to address them. According to Barzilay, the result
of their work has been to achieve is a coherent transcription. I was
hoping that test their technology in our classroom capture systems and see
if it made a difference. The work we did with Dragon Naturally speaking
Pro version gave us good results (9*+% accuracy) if the dictation was done
directly into the computer with the system on it but depreciated
appreciably when the lecture was recorded as we were unable to remove the
audio artifacts from recorded lectures. We tried different microphones,
recorders and other techniques. I would love to try the MIT solution, as
they seem to have taken the variables of real live classroom lectures into
consideration.
Saroj


Send Athen mailing list submissions to

> athen at athenpro.org

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

> http://athenpro.org/mailman/listinfo/athen_athenpro.org

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

> athen-request at athenpro.org

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

> athen-owner at athenpro.org

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of Athen digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

> 1. Dragon 9 (E.A. Draffan)

> 2. Re: Searching Video Lectures - MIT lecture search engine

> (E.A. Draffan)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

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

> From: "E.A. Draffan" <ea at emptech.info>

> Subject: [Athen] Dragon 9

> To: "'Access Technologists in Higher Education Network'"

> <athen at athenpro.org>

> Message-ID: <00f201c85513$85025000$8f06f000$@info>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>

> Sorry I have been at Bett show for the last week - A bit belatedly - we

> have

> been using Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred vers 9 and it even works

> with

> commands to go to separate areas when using Moodle. Really quick to get

> up

> and running and when you use Parallels on the Mac with Windows XP and a

> USB

> headset it still seems to recognise my speech without training! I did find

> the mic dipped out at times and had to use audio setup to make the best of

> it - obviously one training script improves the output further.

>

> Best wishes E.A.

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: athen-bounces at athenpro.org [mailto:athen-bounces at athenpro.org] On

> Behalf Of Dan Comden

> Sent: 09 January 2008 19:27

> To: Access Technologists in Higher Education Network

> Subject: Re: [Athen] FW: Foot Mouse

>

>

> We've had the No Hands mouse (http://www.footmouse.com/) in our place for

> a few years now. I've had about 20 different people, mostly faculty and

> staff, try it, and a couple of those took it back to their offices for

> longer term evaluations of up to a couple of weeks. Nobody selected it as

> a mouse alternate. Fine motor control with feet is something that appears

> to take quite a lot of practice!

>

> As for question 2, yes we're using Dragon 9 now, though we don't have many

> hours of experience with it yet. Seems pretty accurate is about all I can

> say about it right now.

>

> *-*-*- Please note and update my slightly changed email address *-*-*-*-

> Dan Comden danc at washington.edu

> Access Technology Lab http://www.washington.edu/computing/atl/

> University of Washington

>

>

> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Sean Keegan wrote:

>

>> Hello all,

>>

>> I am forwarding for another member - please see the message below.

>>

>> *********************

>> From: Howard Kramer [mailto:hkramer at colorado.edu]

>> Subject: foot mouse

>>

>> Hello All:

>>

>> Anyone have any experience with the "foottime foot mouse," or any other

>> brand of foot mouse." Second question - has anyone used Dragon 9 as of

> yet?

>>

>> Thanks,

>> Howard

>

> _______________________________________________

> Athen mailing list

> Athen at athenpro.org

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 2

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

> From: "E.A. Draffan" <ea at emptech.info>

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

> engine

> To: "'Access Technologists in Higher Education Network'"

> <athen at athenpro.org>, <ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>

> Message-ID: <00f701c85513$85ca5af0$915f10d0$@info>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>

> 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: athen-bounces at athenpro.org [mailto:athen-bounces at athenpro.org] On

> Behalf Of Saroj Primlani

> Sent: 09 January 2008 16:06

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> Cc: athen at athenpro.org

> 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:LISTSERV at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU]

> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:00 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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 <tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU]

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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

> tft at u.washington.edu

> 206/221-4168

>

>

> _____

>

>

> From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU]

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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> </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?) 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 service. =

> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>

> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

> size=3D2><SPAN=20

> class=3D531225413-08012008></SPAN></FONT> </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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <BR><B>Sent:</B> =

> Wednesday,=20

> January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20

> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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’t too thrilled with the=20

> idea.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

> <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =

> #1f497d"><o:p> </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’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> </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’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 – 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> </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 – =

> not better. For=20

> a web-based system, the current standard has around 20 checkpoints. =

>  With=20

> the new standards we’re moving to over 50. How many accurate =

> responses do you=20

> think we’re going to get now?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

> <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =

> #1f497d"><o:p> </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> </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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 21, =

> 2007 4:22=20

> PM<BR><B>To:</B> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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'"> <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'"> <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 web-based multimedia application, does it need to =

> comply=20

> with web, software, or multimedia standards?)  </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'"> <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  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. </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'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

> <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =

> 'Arial','sans-serif'">Do 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'"> <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 adopted Section 508 =

>

> standards across all categories of IT except Web, in which =

> they=20

> adopted Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is finalized, then WCAG =

> 2.0=20

> will become the standard. 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'"> <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'"> <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 & Communications<BR>University of=20

> Washington<BR>tft at u.washington.edu<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:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, =

> December=20

> 21, 2007 1:30 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20

> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <BR><B>Sent:</B> =

> Thursday,=20

> November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20

> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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> </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> </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 – 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> </o:p></P>

> <P class=3DMsoNormal>I’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> </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> </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" <ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU>

> 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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU]=20

> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]=20

> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU]=20

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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

> tft at u.washington.edu

> 206/221-4168=20

>

> =09

> ________________________________

>

>

> From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU]=20

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]=20

> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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 – 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> </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> </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> </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> </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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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"'> <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?) Even a rough itemization of estimated =

> costs

> would be great information for any institutions that are considering a

> centralized in-house caption/description 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"'> <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"'> <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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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’t too thrilled with the =

> idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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’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> </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’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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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 – 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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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> </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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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"'> <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"'> <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 web-based multimedia application, does it need =

> to

> comply with web, software, or multimedia =

> standards?)  </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"'> <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  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. </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"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";

> color:blue'>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. </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"'> <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 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. </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"'> <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"'> <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 & Communications<br>

> University of Washington<br>

> tft at u.washington.edu<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:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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> </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> </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 – especially since we already have enough =

> trouble

> getting valid answers back from a vendor.<o:p></o:p></p>

>

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

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal>I’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> </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> </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 <ron at AHEAD.ORG>

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:49 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU]

> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU]

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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

> tft at u.washington.edu

> 206/221-4168

>

>

> _____

>

>

> From: OSullivan, Abigail R. [mailto:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU]

> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU]

> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM

> To: ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

> 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> </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.  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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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> </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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:49 AM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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 =

>

> 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> </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> </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> </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> </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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 AM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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"'> <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?) Even a rough itemization of estimated =

> costs

> would be great information for any institutions that are considering a

> centralized in-house caption/description 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"'> <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"'> <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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:32 AM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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’t too thrilled with the =

> idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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’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> </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’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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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 – 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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p> </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> </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:tft at U.WASHINGTON.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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"'> <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"'> <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 web-based multimedia application, does it need =

> to

> comply with web, software, or multimedia =

> standards?)  </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"'> <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  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. </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"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span =

> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";

> color:blue'>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. </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"'> <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 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. </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"'> <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"'> <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 & Communications<br>

> University of Washington<br>

> tft at u.washington.edu<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:osullivana at MISSOURI.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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:ChadKillingsworth at MISSOURISTATE.EDU] <br>

> <b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM<br>

> <b>To:</b> ITACCESS at LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<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> </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> </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> </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 – especially since we already have enough =

> trouble

> getting valid answers back from a vendor.<o:p></o:p></p>

>

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

>

> <p class=3DMsoNormal>I’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> </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> </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

> Athen at athenpro.org

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> Athen mailing list

> Athen at athenpro.org

> http://athenpro.org/mailman/listinfo/athen_athenpro.org

>

>

> End of Athen Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6

> ************************************

>






More information about the athen-list mailing list