[Athen] RE: Canuvs Vs Blackboard ? for Dan: athen-list Digest, Vol 78, Issue 16

[Wink Harner]

Thanks Dan. Let me know if I can create a special section for you to login
to Canvas.
 On Jul 25, 2012 5:12 PM, "Dan Comden" <danc at uw.edu> wrote:


> Hi Bill

>

> Answers below, in-line

>

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Bill Grubaugh <grubaugh at sfsu.edu> wrote:

>

>> Hi Dan et. al.

>> Thanks for the feedback on Canvas. You mentioned That Canvas's Grading

>> module has serious accessibility issues; is this faculty facing or, student

>> facing?

>>

>

> The grading module I examined is faculty-facing. At the moment I don't

> have a complete student view of all Canvas features.

>

>

>>

>> I ask because, if it is faculty facing then the likely hood of individual

>> accommodation may be in place and/or, could be readily implemented for this

>> LMS feature/function; while the company tends to the problem.

>>

>

> That is possibly an option, depending on the severity of the problem.

> However if we know that we have faculty that are screen reader users, or

> keyboard-only users, or speech input users, it is important to point out

> accessibility shortcomings in a product before they are purchased or

> deployed. If there is no apparent method for users (from either student or

> faculty sides) to use an application independently, and we know about it

> beforehand, that problem should be addressed straight away, not after a

> contract has been signed.

>

>

>>

>> Does Blackboard also have a comparatively equal problem?

>>

>

> I do not know. I have not used or tested Blackboard in many many years.

> Perhaps someone else in ATHEN-land can respond?

>

>

>>

>>  If and when doing comparative assessments of products do you weigh  -

>> what I'd call public facing interface features over staff facing interface

>> accessibility? E.g., If two products are not fully accessible yet one has a

>> fairly good student facing interface, yet the faculty facing has issues and

>> the other is converse student facing is troublesome the one with the

>> faculty issues may be a better choice - depending on the critical needs and

>> functional requirements of the Requester. Then again the critical need in

>> education is to reach students so I guess that should be factored into the

>> product functionality from the get-go.

>> What do ya think?

>>

>

> This was not a comparative assessment, it's an examination of our Canvas

> pilot implementation with a focus on non-mouse access. I used

> keyboard-only, screenreading and speech input methods to interact with the

> LMS. I also glanced at default font and color choices.

>

> From an overall accessibility perspective, I don't think it matters

> whether a significant problem is from the student side or the faculty side.

> Also don't forget there often is a third side: that of system admin or

> superusers that may interact with the system at a different level than

> either students or faculty -- that interface and any relevant modules

> should be accessible as well.

>

> With our current knowledge of what is needed for application and web

> accessibility, I find it hard to justify implementing or deploying a

> product that essentially prohibits someone from accomplishing a key

> component of their job. In the case of faculty, a key job component is

> entering and publishing grade information.

>

> By no means do I intend to single out a single vendor. But I do have to

> say I'm frustrated with companies that market their products as "disability

> friendly" or "ADA Compliant" when it's obvious that their knowledge of such

> matters apparently ends at the time they write those phrases. I don't think

> this is the case with Canvas, as some modules appear to be fairly

> accessible. It's a comment about other vendors I've observed over the years.

>

> And while I'm on a rant, I'll point out that seeing the specific phrase

> "ADA Compliant" in connection to applications or web pages is a pretty good

> indicator to me that the vendor does not understand accessibility because

> they can't even articulate the standards language properly.

>

> It's implied, but I'll state it openly here: I'm not speaking for my

> employer/institution; these are opinions that result from my experience.

>

> I look forward to comments!

>

> --

> -*- Dan Comden                       danc at uw.edu <danc at washington.edu>

>     Access Technology Center   www.uw.edu/itconnect/accessibility/atl/

>     University of Washington      UW Information Technology

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> athen-list mailing list

> athen-list at mailman1.u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman12.u.washington.edu/pipermail/athen-list/attachments/20120725/f45fa4eb/attachment.html>