Matt Hampel | matth.org

In my inbox today, a response to my question about the accessibility of the City of Ann Arbor’s website:

Thank you for your patience. The city is in the process of converting to new Web site management software. As the city trains its team of Web content editors to work with the new software, the importance of alt tabs [sic] is emphasized, and editors are shown how to complete this important step. The addition of alt tabs is becoming a part of editors’ routine content-updating process.

In addition, the communications office is meeting regularly with members of the city’s commission on disability issues to further help ensure our Web site is accessible to all. This partnership has been very valuable.

I hope you will find our site even more user friendly with the upcoming launch of the new software in the weeks to come. As always, we welcome your feedback.

Let me draw your attention to several points in this photo:

Note that the light on the Diebold keycard reader next to the “secure” door into East Quad is not on. That means the door is unlocked — and it has been that way for at least 5 days (I put in my work request 4 days ago). So much for housing security.

In the meantime, instead of repairing the lock, Michigan Housing has installed an illuminated exit sign — between two possible exits, one of which clearly leads to the open street. But the gates on that entrance open inwards — so if they are closed, it would be hard to open them with a crowd pressing to get out.

Finally, note how the “handicapped entrance” sign points clearly to a door with a barrier. How someone is expected to swipe through the keycard lock, open the door, and get inside while in a wheelchair, I don’t know. Where they are to go after they’re inside is a mystery too, for the only options involve stairs.

East Quad courtyard entrance:

Bonus: the lights are still on at 9:30am.

Ms. Patty Bradley-Diehl, Web Administrator at the School of Public Health, was able to coordinate a large group of people for the first Web Accessibility Working Group meeting at the University of Michigan. Here’s are the rough notes from my little yellow pad. Sorry everyone — I didn’t catch names for most of these comments.

Round of introductions. People here from Kellogg Eye Center, ITCS, Health System (which is converting to a CMS in “two years”; vendor unknown), Sam Goodin from Services for Students with Disabilities, rosefirerising, someone on the phone from CTools, UM Museums are represented, a great fellow who worked with accessibility at Johns Hopkins whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, me (”from the Residential College”), many others.

First topic: we want ARTIFACTS that we can put on peoples’ desks and point at. Someone mentions Hans Masing’s 1999 UM network-wide accessibility survey for SI (I couldn’t find a copy after some searching). Respondent suggests that this effort not be repeated.

ITCS sez, we shouldn’t be overwhelming people with resources. Patricia Anderson uses an accessibility checklist from UWisconsin in her class (sadly, dental students are not always engaged in the subject).

UWisconsin is a good resource, apparently, and will send you paper artifacts on request.

So, is this group going to publish guidelines? (final answer: MAYBE) If so, they should have teeth. Suggestion from group: stay away from 508, concentrate on 504 (short reading about 504 and 508). Someone is “worried about a federal investigator” (anyone know one to call?)

Specific example: the UM Transport Research Institute has a lot of state / federal data, but isn’t accessible. Some talk here about using a LIFT transcoder to scrape and regurgitate text [me: isn’t that the 1999 strategy?]

observed on-screen: a librarian goes through library portal to reach Google.

Museums representative asks, what level of description is adequate? They don’t even have scholarly long descriptions for much of their work. Answer: disability specialist at UM will get them connected with another US institution that is cutting-edge in this field. Paring special organizations like museums and concert halls with counterparts is a new goal.

CTools representative on the phone wants a much more “federated approach”. No guidelines, only “share your war stories”. Also, CTools has hired someone with a disability to do direct testing of the app.

Considering press and awards for good performers.

Definite new program: starting an ad-hoc squad of volunteer staff to do quarterly “bring-your-woes” workshops. And perhaps an IPL-like sweatshop where students accept and answer submitted web accessibility questions

General complaints about site: no time for testing, have to learn it at home; people like moving stuff (”but of course, that’s an ADHD issue”).

Question to the group from CTools: “Who is actually doing testing?” [silence] (some people are looking for SI students to work for a term for free, not funded)

I suggested: work with the Division of Student Affairs to set up a work-study / funded position that other departments can work with on a per-contract basis to test websites. [general approval]

Collaboration in the future: set up a wiki. Where? General vote is CTools, so it’ll be Politician-style (which is my new term for a wiki that deals with public issues but is locked behind closed gates)

Follow up: 1 hour later, a couple of School of Public Health people walked by and were interested/happy that we were using their new conference room. “There was stuff on the screen!” says one.