[WG: Accessibility] Sakai OAE v1.1 Accessibility Evaluation Report draft for today's conference !!DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!!

[Nate Angell]

AWG: I would like to send the following message to the Sakai OAE URG. Is
that appropriate given where the report stands now? We would not really be
looking at the details, but more the big picture.

= nate

<draft>
I would like to thank the AWG for this thorough and thoughtful work.

In the context of the Sakai OAE User Reference Group (URG), I would like to
propose that the URG review and discuss this report at our earliest
convenience (even in its draft form), with an eye to establishing the URG's
view on where accessibility in general falls as a goal in overall OAE
project efforts.

As a relatively new member of the URG, I apologize if we have already taken
up this topic and come to some determinations. If we have, I
would appreciate a pointer to any records of such.

I propose that we consider raising the priority of accessibility to be
addressed proactively as a core part of OAE project development processes
for a couple of reasons:

1) Accessibility is now really not an optional checkbox for platform
adoption, but a key decider. Without some credible accessibility
compliance, a platform is out of consideration in many adoption processes.
With compliance, a platform can then go on to compete on its other
merits—of which OAE has many. Many of us likely have accessibility
requirements at our home institutions. What are those, and to what degree
are they being met and addressed in the OAE project?

2) As Eli Cochran—who I've come to think of as my personal accessibility
mentor—often points out: most accessibility wins are wins for general
usability as well, so effort paid to accessibility usually pays off for
general usability as well.

As the AWG suggests, without a higher priority given to accessibility, we
are left with remediation, and we can already see how that plays out
(always catchup). The AWG is reviewing OAE 1.1 while 1.3 is already in QA.

If we reprioritize accessibility, we would likely need to work with the
project team to identify what resources might be necessary for
review/testing, remediation, etc, and good pathways to push accessibility
practices to be earlier in the development process.

--
Nate Angell
Sakai Product Manager
rSmart
http://www.rsmart.com
http://twitter.com/xolotl
http://xolotl.org
</draft>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Humbert, Joseph A <johumber at iupui.edu>wrote:

>  Hi All Accessibility Working Group members,****
>
> ** **
>
> Attached is the draft of the Sakai OAE v1.1 Accessibility Evaluation
> Report.  We will be discussing the content of the report at today’s
> teleconference.  Any constancy or grammatical errors will be address after
> the content has been approved by the group.  PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE this
> report. It will be disseminated once the report has been finalized.  Thankx
> for all your hard work. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Joe Humbert, Assistive Technology and Web Accessibility Specialist****
>
> UITS Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers****
>
> Indiana University, Indianapolis and Bloomington****
>
> 535 W Michigan St. IT214 E****
>
> Indianapolis, IN 46202****
>
> Office Phone: (317) 274-4378****
>
> Cell Phone: (317) 644-6824****
>
> johumber at iupui.edu****
>
> http://iuadapts.Indiana.edu/ <http://iuadapts.indiana.edu/>****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> accessibility mailing list
> accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to
> accessibility-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of
> "unsubscribe"
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20120531/df08cab9/attachment.html