An assessment of Web accessibility knowledge and needs at Oregon community colleges.

A needs assessment determined Oregon community college staff knowledge of (a) accessible information technology (IT) guidelines, (b) IT-related disability laws, (c) legal obligations regarding Web accessibility, and (d) perceived level of current Web accessibility. Training needs were assessed and training suggestions were solicited. IT staff demonstrated higher levels of Web accessibility guidelines knowledge, and disability/student services staff best understood disability laws. At most schools, knowledge of disability issues and IT were not integrated. Needs identified included provision of: comprehensive resources about accessible Web design, hands-on trainings in accessible technology topics, strategies for fulfilling legal accessibility obligations, training for students and staff regarding their responsibilities in the area of accessible IT, and a Web site accessibility testing service.

**********

Accessible Web design techniques help make equal educational opportunities a reality for students with disabilities. Through accessible Web design, a student with a visual impairment has access to text descriptions of visual information, and a student who is deaf can access the spoken content of a streaming video through captioning. Students with limitations in manual dexterity can use an adaptive keyboard or other input device to navigate through interface elements on an accessible Web site. By providing accessible content on Web sites, instructors avoid the need for expensive individual accommodations and ensure that students have access to instructional materials at the same time as their peers. By providing an accessible Web site, a community college is more likely to provide full access to equal educational opportunities for students both with and without disabilities.

While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the U.S. Office of Education's Office for Civil Rights have provided guidance regarding access to governmental programs and services, there is considerable confusion regarding the applicability of accessibility requirements to information technology systems at community colleges. Previous studies show variability in the accessibility of community colleges' Web sites (Flowers, Bray, & Algozzine, 2001), as well as differences in approaches for making current Web sites accessible (Thompson, Burgstahler & Comden, 2003).

In this article, we review national guidelines and relevant agreements regarding accessibility of information technology in community colleges, along with previous studies of Web access. We report results of a needs assessment of Oregon community colleges and discuss implications and recommendations for practice.

Guidelines and Relevant Agreements Regarding Accessibility of Community College Information Technology

The ADA was signed into law on July 26, 1990, with the goal of addressing barriers to equal access to employment, state and local government programs, transportation, public buildings, and communication technology. Since the law's effective date (1991), the ADA has been continually redefined as a result of interpretations made by the Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are responsible for ADA enforcement and share investigative responsibilities with nine federal agencies. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is the investigative agency for complaints related to higher education (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004).

Title II of the Act prohibits discrimination by state and local government entities, including public community colleges, in the provision of programs and services. Title III contains similar requirements that cover private community colleges. Community colleges are required under the ADA to provide "effective communication" through the provision of auxiliary aids and services to individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration to the program or service (U.S. Department of Justice, 1993). Auxiliary aids can include audio-taped texts, materials in Braille, large print, sign language interpreters, captioning, and other methods of making audio and visual media available to people with disabilities. Electronic formats allow users to manipulate information in a variety of ways and have become another method through which to provide effective communication for many individuals with disabilities. For example, a publication provided in hypertext markup language (HTML) can be resized by a user or read aloud with screen reading software, providing the accessibility advantages of an audio-tape or large print version through a single electronic file.

In addition to the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. Section 504 applies to both public and private colleges, and it states that access to benefits and services must be equal for people with and without disabilities. Additionally, qualified students may not be excluded from a program or given different benefits or services in a program on the basis of disability. Maintaining an accessible Web site is one way for community colleges to provide accessible services that comply with the civil rights requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

Through settlement agreements, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education has applied the concept of "effective communication" to Web sites. In a response to a student's complaint that a university had failed to provide access to the Internet, the Office for Civil Rights stated:

   The issue is not whether the student with the disability is merely
   provided access, but the issue is rather the extent to which the
   communication is actually as effective as that provided to others.
   Title II [of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990] also
   strongly affirms the important role that computer technology is
   expected to play as an auxiliary aid by which communication is made
   effective for persons with disabilities. (Shelton, 1996, para. 3)

In further clarifying what is meant by "effective communication," the Office for Civil Rights later described the three basic components of effective communication as "timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual with the disability" (Cardenas, 1997). The Office for Civil Rights asserts that entities have an affirmative duty to develop a comprehensive policy in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or services, and it has also indicated that a public entity that only responds to specific requests for accommodation violates its obligations under the ADA. Finally, the Office for Civil Rights has interpreted the effective communication requirement as imposing a duty for entities to ensure that new technology upgrades either improve accessibility or are compatible with existing assistive computer technology.

Efforts to improve Web accessibility rely on guidelines and standards that define what it means for Web content to be accessible. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium that has developed common protocols for the Web since 1994. A sub-group of W3C called the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) released the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG) on May 5, 1999. The WCAG provides 14 guidelines, divided into 65 checkpoints, each assigned one of 3 priority levels with priority 1 items being the most essential items (Chisholm, Vanderheiden, & Jacobs, 1999). Federal efforts soon followed. In response to an amendment to the Rehabilitation Act requiring federal agencies to develop and procure accessible information technology, the U.S. Access Board published the Section 508 Standards for Electronic and Information Technology on December 12, 2000 (U. S. Access Board, 2000). The Section 508 Standards cover six categories of information technology accessibility and, in the area of Web content, provide 16 checkpoints. Either the WCAG or Section 508 standards, or a combination of both, can provide meaningful guidance for a community college concerned with providing accessible information and services online.

Community colleges have a legal responsibility to provide equal access to education for individuals with disabilities. The requirement for "effective communication" has been interpreted to include electronic environments. Consequently, colleges must understand Web accessibility issues and be able to address access barriers faced by students with disabilities. An examination of the current level of accessibility within community college Web sites and the capacity for improvement helped to shape the particular questions and concerns of a needs assessment within Oregon community colleges.

Assessment of Community College Accessibility Proficiency

Measurement of Web accessibility in community colleges and other institutions has relied primarily on automated assessment tools such as Bobby. Web accessibility assessment tools analyze the source code of Web pages, applying algorithms to measure compliance with either the Section 508 standards or the WCAG. Despite their promise, however, widely available tools such as Bobby are unable to assess many important Web accessibility checkpoints, including the implications of scripting, accessibility of video and audio files, or the appropriateness of alternative text. In addition, Bobby cannot give feedback regarding the severity or impact of a particular problem (Schmetzke, 2004).

To address such limitations, researchers have applied methods based upon manual assessments and also have combined automated and manual assessments. A recent study separately applied an automated analysis using Bobby's 3-point scale and a manual functional assessment using a 5-point scale. The researchers found a statistically significant correlation between the automated results from Bobby (measuring WCAG priority 1 compliance) and the manual method, suggesting that despite its limitations, Bobby may be adequate to assess an overall measure of an institution's Web site accessibility (Thompson et al., 2003).

The results of studies utilizing automated methods of assessment like Bobby suggest that significant post-secondary Web accessibility challenges exist. A study assessing the home pages of 260 community colleges (253 home pages were successfully assessed) found only 23% were fully accessible according to the WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints. The main Priority 1 accessibility error was not providing alternative text for images. Some problems in areas of lower priority (Priority 2 and 3) included non-identification of the language used, non-provision of keyboard shortcuts for links that were used frequently, and improper accessible supports for the use of tables (Flowers et al., 2001). A study of 1051 community college home pages conducted in December 2000 found that only 29% met the Web Content Accessibility Priority 1 Guideline checkpoints (Schmetzke, 2001).

Other studies show similarly low levels of accessibility but also suggest that policy can play a role in improving Web accessibility. Bobby was used to conduct WCAG priority 1 evaluations of Web pages at the University of Wisconsin each year from 1999 through the present. In 2000, the University of Wisconsin directed all Wisconsin campuses to "adopt and subscribe minimally" to the WCAG Priority 1 Checkpoints (Meachen, 2000). The University of Wisconsin increased the percentage of its Web pages that were Bobby-approved according to WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints between 1999 (48%) and 2004 (62%) (Schmetzke, 2004). While there is clearly a need for community colleges to improve their Web accessibility (Schmetzke, 2001), Schmetzke's (2004) work indicates that establishing university policy regarding accessibility can influence the percentage of accessible Web pages.

While automated tools appear to be useful "indicators" of accessibility, there is disagreement over the usefulness of such tools to the individual Web developer. Proper use of Web accessibility evaluation tools involves not only knowledge regarding which checkpoints can be automatically assessed but also careful consideration of the requirement for human intervention in the automated checking process. When Bobby was developed, a lead Center for Applied Special Technology advisor for Bobby noted that 73% of the items assessed by Bobby must still be manually verified (Cooper, 2001). Flowers et al. (2001) noted that a high proportion of college Web sites assessed had accessibility errors that required manual examination to detect, such as problematic use of color. Even when Web pages contain many items that are reported as compliant by automated assessment tools, the Web site overall may not be accessible. Some older page authoring tools, for instance, will automatically insert the file name and file size of an image as the "text description" that is required by Web accessibility guidelines. While Bobby and other tools would report compliance on the appropriate checkpoint, in reality, the images on such a site would likely remain inaccessible to someone with a visual disability.

It is clear from studies using a variety of methodologies that significant Web accessibility barriers remain in the community college environment. In addition, measuring compliance with Web accessibility standards using tools such as Bobby is only effective if designers have a good understanding of Web accessibility guidelines and can effectively assess the checkpoints requiring human judgment. Taking such information into consideration, it is not clear if community colleges have the supports they need to increase effectively the accessibility of their Web environments.

The purpose of the current research was to determine awareness of Web accessibility guidelines and standards, identify barriers to the implementation of systems meeting these standards and guidelines, and identify appropriate strategies to raise the level of Web accessibility within the Oregon community college system. Specifically, we sought to answer the following four research questions about the current state of accessibility of information technology at Oregon community colleges and how accessibility could be improved: (a) What do respondents know about disability laws and their application to information technology? (b) How are community college Web sites used? (c) How is accessibility addressed? And (d) What kinds of learning activities regarding accessibility and information technology would be useful for disability and information technology staff?

Method

Phone interviews were conducted because Oregon's community colleges encompass a large geographic area. The target audience was community college educators, staff, and students in Oregon's 17 community colleges, including information technology managers, Web developers, disability support services staff, instructors, and persons with disabilities. After identifying the sample, we created a semi-structured survey that addressed areas of current knowledge, current uses and purposes of information technology at schools, and participant-identified gaps and training need. We also obtained approval from the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board to conduct the needs assessment.

Over a period of 6 weeks, experienced research staff contacted colleges via phone, Web site, or e-mail to identify an "information technology manager" and "disability service manager" or similarly titled individuals to invite to participate in the interviews. Sampling then proceeded via a snowball method: each interviewee was asked about others who would have information, experience, or expertise in accessibility issues or Web design. Telephone interviews were not tape-recorded; interviewers typed detailed notes during each interview. Most interviews were about 20 minutes in length; individual interviews varied in length. Individuals who were recommended for interview but did not respond were called a minimum of three times to attempt an interview.

Results

We attempted to contact (i.e., left phone messages for or sent e-mails to) 81 individuals to invite them to participate in an interview. Of these, we interviewed 46 individuals at 14 of 17 community colleges. Fourteen individuals actively declined to participate; the remaining individuals did not respond to repeated invitations to participate. We were unable to interview staff during the study period at three community colleges. Table 1 indicates the number and type of individuals contacted. Most respondents either worked in information technology (including Webmasters, information technology managers, computer services coordinators, and network administrators) or disability services (including student support services).

Overall, respondents knew basic information about laws regarding accessibility and information technology. At most schools, however, disability and information technology issues are separate, which results in difficulty systematically addressing accessible information technology. Respondents indicated some confusion and concern about the application of laws to their school's requirements, and many reported a gap between what they would like to implement and the resources available. Respondents identified needs including training, provision of resources, and specific strategies to fulfill legal obligations.

Knowledge About Laws Regarding Accessibility and Information Technology

All respondents (n = 46), regardless of area of expertise, indicated they knew that school-related disability laws are related to the provision of access for individuals with disabilities. Most used the words "reasonable accommodations" or similar verbiage.

All respondents also stated that disability laws applied to Web-based information. Many indicated that Web site development should consider the needs of individuals with visual disabilities in both the makeup of the Web sites (e.g., large fonts, navigable menus) and in the integration of the Web site structure with aids for individuals with disabilities (e.g., screen readers, ZoomText). Some also mentioned accommodations for physical disabilities (such as making pull-down menus accessible for people who have difficulty with smooth free motor movements) and hearing limitations (such as not having audio associated with Web sites). Most discussed these in a positive manner, with an attitude of wanting to be able to help students.

   It's our obligation to be ADA compliant without undue burden
   on the school. Our obligation is to make sure everything in our
   physical world and our virtual world is accessible.--Web
   Developer

Twenty-five of 46 respondents indicated they were at least somewhat familiar with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides technical standards for the development of accessible electronic and information technology, including standards for Web-based intranet and internet information. Table 2 provides a description of familiarity with these codes by general job description. Several interviewees indicated they were not sure Section 508 applied to them as community colleges, whereas others indicated their belief that they were required to abide by the law's guidelines.

Twenty-one interviewees indicated they were at least somewhat familiar with the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Many of these indicated they used the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as reference only but did not have a thorough understanding of them.

Many staff indicated they relied on others for interpretation of or access to the Section 508 and/or Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. For example, an information technology manager stated he knew of Section 508 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines but relied on the school's disability coordinator for interpretation of the guidelines. Others reported that they sought technical assistance from the Oregon Association of Higher Education regarding Web accessibility issues and other disability access questions.

While a few individuals reported they were clear on requirements of the guidelines, a frequent concern was the application of guidelines to specific situations. Disability and information technology staff expressed concern about how to apply the laws to their specific school, particularly in balancing the need to have accessible information technology within budgetary and staffing constraints:

   I think the laws are fairly clear, and I don't have to reinvent the
   wheel. The verbiage has been broken down through many online
   resources. There are a lot of resources that break it down to the
   HTML code. I think the biggest problem--we know what we're
   supposed to do, but we don't know how to do that in an effective
   manner. We only have so much money and don't know how for
   ourselves where to draw the line. We're trying to figure out what's
   reasonable and unreasonable burden.--Web Developer

   This is a huge gray area: What constitutes accessible and
   inaccessible Web sites? It seems like you are just supposed to try
   and do as well as possible and show a good faith effort.--Information
   Technology Director

   We don't know what [screen-reading technology] users have,
   and what versions are available. Different organizations also say
   different things about accessibility and it's difficult to find
   agreement on best practices--Information Technology Director

Respondents also reported concerns about working with individual students, particularly regarding the extent to which colleges must consider and accommodate the differing needs of students. These concerns were related to both the specific accommodation required and the paperwork and documentation issues associated with the accommodations.

   We need to know what our responsibility is. For example, do we
   have to make sure the students have ZoomText, or is that the
   students' responsibility?--Disability Service Coordinator

   Students are often used to accommodations being made for them
   in high school by special education staff or parents and don't
   know how to advocate for themselves. Older students may not
   even know what is available to them. In our small community
   college, we don't have a full-time person to manage this, so we
   have to scramble to figure out what students need for each one
   that comes in.--Media Services Director

A few interviewees expressed frustration when considering the perceived limits imposed by the accessibility requirements, both on their creativity and on the school's flexibility to respond to students.

   It's hard to be a creative Web designer and still be compliant.
   Part of my job is to make the Web site look hot, but that doesn't
   always work with compliance.--Internet Services Director

   We have no choice in accommodations ... we have to make them
   for students who ask and we're limited on what we can do.--Web
   site Coordinator

Additionally, information technology staff expressed concerns about increasing the accessibility of products provided by third-party vendors or commercial venues.

   I work with [commercially available course management
   software], but it's an uphill battle to get it ADA compliant. These
   programs were made before people were thinking about
   compliance.--Distance Learning Coordinator

   We integrate several programs for distance learning and database
   searching through our Web site, and it's difficult to ensure they're
   all equally compliant and compatible--Information Technology
   Manager

In sum, most staff understood general guidelines regarding accessibility, but their interpretations and application of this information varied widely. Generally, school information technology staff had more knowledge of Web accessibility guidelines, and disability and student services staff had better understanding of disability laws.

Use and Accessibility of Community College Web Sites

   I have pretty strong feelings about Web site accessibility. We
   should consider the use of color, size of text, contrast,
   backgrounds, use clear alt tags, have text-based versions ... we
   shouldn't have things flashing and blinking on the screen ... A lot
   of these things that apply to people with disabilities are good
   designs for everybody.--Media Services Director

There is a great variety of sophistication among Oregon community college Web sites. All schools reported providing static information on their Web sites, such as policies, procedures, course catalogs, maps, parking information, and faculty contact information. Table 3 summarizes reported features of college Web sites.

Many schools offer some form of registration via their Web site, either by providing static portable document format (PDF) forms that can be printed and mailed in or by having interactive, online registration. Colleges that did not have online, interactive forms stated they wanted those capabilities. Staff from five colleges reported they were in the process of updating their Web sites.

Most interviewees knew that certain structural changes to the Web site would increase readability by individuals with visual disabilities and would facilitate the use of technology (e.g., screen readers) for individuals with disabilities to access Web sites. All colleges reported some attention to accessibility in the development of their Web sites. Table 4 summarizes the number of colleges reporting use of each method.

The most common feature reported was the application of alt-tags that displayed detailed information for graphics on the page so that screen-readers could report a description of the graphic for visually impaired individuals. Colleges also paid significant attention to the content and appearance of Web sites, including ensuring that color and contrast (n = 5) and that text font and size (n = 4) were accessible. Schools also included accessibility issues in the construction of Web sites, including keeping pages short (n = 6) and ensuring that there was a consistent look and flow to pages (n = 6). Notably, nine schools use an automated Web accessibility assessment tool such as Bobby to check the accessibility of their pages. Two schools had an individual with visual impairment test the Web site using his or her personal preference of assistive software and provide feedback.

When asked to rate their school's Web site on a scale of 1-5 with 1 indicating poor accessibility and 5 indicating ideal accessibility, disability and information technology staff provided similar responses. Disability staff reported an average of 3.6, and Web information technology staff reported an average of 3.2 on this scale.

Training Content and Targets to Improve Accessible Information Technology

Most interviewees provided recommendations for improving the accessibility of information technology. Rural schools requested training at their school because of limited funds and traveling time to urban areas. The following training and services were recommended for disability and information technology staff.

A comprehensive resource (Web site preferred, or written materials) that compiled information about current technology, resources, best practices, and accessibility guidelines. Many interviewees indicated difficulty interpreting the various resources that are available. Such a site could include compilation of links to accessibility-assessment tools Web sites and a link to a model Web site that demonstrated accessibility. It would be ideal on a regular basis to post updates to case law and any new information that would be helpful for information technology and disability staff at community colleges.

Clarification regarding legal obligations. Many staff expressed concern about the colleges' obligations to provide program access and a lack of understanding in regard to what is, or is not, an "undue burden."

A venue for information sharing among colleges about what is working and about what technology and software are best to purchase. This was recommended in the form of either an e-mail list server or a Web log. Many information technology staff noted that they get many commercial solicitations regarding such products and wanted a way to evaluate technology and software prior to making purchasing decisions, given limited funds, in order to avoid purchasing items that may get little use.

More hands-on training to demonstrate how to use available tools. Many individuals requested training to demonstrate the use of screen readers and other assistive technology, both for the disability office and campus-wide. Training in Web guidelines, technical assistance, available technology and software, and in modifying commercial products (such as Blackboard) to increase accessibility was also requested.

Bridging the gap between disability services and information technology staff. Disability service staff requested that information technology staff receive training that would contribute to their understanding of the importance of accessibility and best practices for achieving accessibility. Information technology staff requested training for disability service staff that would give them a general understanding of the technology component. Several disability service staff suggested that accessibility information might be more readily accepted when it comes from an outsider and would be more valuable if accompanied by a video (for example) portraying the difficulties of access for individuals with various disabilities.

Resources for "testing" Web site accessibility. Colleges were interested in external evaluation or audit of college Web site and internal guidelines without the threat of legal action if there are problems. Staff preferred free or low-cost testing options. Several colleges also indicated they had no students with disabilities at their school and would appreciate an opportunity to have individuals with disabilities test their Web sites. Respondents suggested that the Northwest ADA & Information Technology Center maintain a database of individuals with disabilities who are willing to test Web sites. Additionally, colleges requested other electronic resources to test screen-reader compatibility for colleges that do not have the software on hand.

Several interviewees noted that students with disabilities were often unaware of what accommodations they needed or how to advocate for themselves. It was also reported that students with disabilities were often unfamiliar with the technology that may be available to assist them. Recommendations included: (a) training to teach students about their ADA rights and instruction on how to obtain disability services at school and (b) training for students in the use of specific technology tools. An example of this is a screen reader such as JAWS.

Both information technology and disability service staff indicated that faculty are often not aware of accessibility issues for their Web pages and course information. They recommended training and services for faculty regarding importance of accessibility, as well as structured discussions with faculty about accessibility that includes practical work in a computer lab. Interviewees felt these activities would help faculty better understand accessibility issues and make it easier for faculty to work collaboratively with disability services and information technology staff to meet students' needs.

Discussion

We conducted a needs assessment to determine Oregon community college staff knowledge of accessible information technology, school and information technology-related disability laws, and school legal obligations regarding Web accessibility. We also identified the need for training opportunities that would help community colleges improve the accessibility of their information technology. Findings indicate community colleges in Oregon are striving toward accessibility in the information technology provided to students. Current challenges include (a) limited funding and staff time (b) limited confidence in accurately interpreting legal requirements from the various sources of information available and (c) confusion regarding the many technology tools and methods to meet accessibility needs of students. In addition, many community colleges are small and in rural areas, which adds challenges to their ability to be ADA compliant in that they tend to be have limited flexibility in funding and are less able to participate in centrally-located training. Finally, respondents indicated that disability service and information technology staff do not tend to work together closely; community colleges wishing to address accessible information technology may find that ongoing collaboration between those two groups would be most beneficial. Policy change encouraging this collaboration and stating goals for progress can be an effective route toward change (Schmetzke, 2004).

The results section of this paper details recommendations from staff working in disability services and information technology for improving the way Web site accessibility is promoted and managed in Oregon. These recommendations may be valuable for community colleges outside Oregon as well.

Despite our inability to contact all individuals with knowledge in the area of accessible information technology within the Oregon community college system, we obtained a sufficient sample to provide valuable insight into staff knowledge and training needs. While self-reporting is not always the most complete or accurate method to obtain information, it is an ideal way to determine the breadth and depth of knowledge, and thus it provided value in this study.

While some progress in improving the accessibility of community college Web sites has been made and a corresponding increase in the ability of all community members to use these resources has taken place, future research is needed to explore accessibility knowledge differences between community colleges in rural and urban communities, as well as an assessment of colleges' decision-making process regarding implementation of change in Web development and access. Studies should address disability-information technology partnerships and the effectiveness of interventions to improve accessibility.

Acknowledgments

This needs assessment was funded by the Northwest ADA & Information Technology Center, Oregon Office on Disability and Health, in Portland, Oregon.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 28 C.F.R. [subsection] 35.160-35.164 and 28 C.F.R. [subsection] 36.301-36.310. (1990).

ADA handbook. (1992). Washington, DC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Communication and Legislative Affairs.

Cardenas, A. (1997). Letter to Dr. James Rosser, President of California State University, Los Angeles, from the Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/csula.htm

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http:// www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505

Cooper, M. (2001). Automated evaluation of accessibility guidelines. Proceedings of International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, USA, 3, 150-154.

Flowers, C., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R. F. (2001). Content accessibility of community college Web sites. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 475-485.

Meachen, E. (2000). Letter to vice chancellors and chief information officers of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http:// www.uwsa.edu/olit/access/edmemo.htm

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. [section] 794 ([section] 504). (1973).

Schmetzke, A. (2001). Accessibility of the home pages of the nation's community colleges. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/ Accessible/nationwide/CC_Survey2001/summary_CCC.htm

Schmetzke, A. (2004). Web page accessibility on University of Wisconsin campuses: 2004 survey and six-year trend data. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/ Survey2004/contents2004.htm

Shelton, P. (1996). Letter to Dr. Robert Caret, President of San Jose State University from the Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/sjsu.htm

Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Comden, D. (2003). Research on Web accessibility in higher education. Information technology and disabilities, 9. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv09n2/ thompson.htm

U.S. Access Board (2000). Board issues standards for electronic and information technology. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.access-board.gov/ news/508-final.htm

U.S. Department of Justice (1993). The Americans With Disabilities Act Title H technical assistance manual. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/taman2.html

U.S. Department of Justice (2004). ADA investigative agencies. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/investag.htm

Jennifer P. Wisdom is the director of the Center for Health and Disability Policy, Oregon Health Policy Institute at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon. [e-mail]

Nathan A. White is a Web application developer at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. [e-mail]

Kimberley A. Goldsmith is a research associate at the Medical Research Council, Biostatistics Unit in Cambridge, United Kingdom. [e-mail]

Sarann Bielavitz is a senior research assistant for the Center for Health and Disability Policy, Oregon Health Policy Institute at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon. [e-mail]

Charles E. Davis is the Center Coordinator of the Northwest Americans with Disabilities Act & Information Technology Center, Center on Community Accessibility at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon. [e-mail]

Charles Drum is the director of the Center on Community Accessibility at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon. [e-mail]

Table 1 Community College Needs Assessment Contacts by Job Title

Job Title                                   Contacts

Disability-related
  Disability Services Director/Specialist      13
  Student Services                              3
Information Technology-related
  Webmaster                                     9
  Network Administrator/Programmer              3
  Information Technology Manager/Director       8
  Distance Learning/Library Webmaster           6
Other
  Student                                       1
  Faculty                                       1
  Public Affairs/Media Affairs
TOTAL                                          46

Table 2
Community College Staff Familiarity of Web Accessibility Standards

                                   Very     Somewhat     Not
                                 Familiar   Familiar   Familiar

Section 508
  Disability Service Staff        4 (9%)     3 (7%)    9 (20%)
  Information Technology Staff   7 (15%)    11 (24%)   8 (17%)
  Other                             0          0        4 (9%)

World Wide Web Consortium / Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

  Disability Service Staff          0       6 (13%)    10 (22%)
  Information Technology Staff   6 (13%)    9 (20%)    11 (24%)
  Other                             0          0        4 (9%)

Note. Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 3
Features of Community College Web Sites

Features                                                           N

Static information (policies, procedures, course catalog, etc.)   14
Distance learning                                                  9
Interactive registration/transcripts/grades                        7
Online courses                                                     5
Intranet for faculty                                               4
Library databases                                                  3

Table 4
Efforts by Community Colleges to Ensure Web Site Accessibility

Features
                                                   N
Content and Appearance
  Use of Alt-tags                                 11
  Consideration of color/contrast                  5
  Consideration of text font and size              4
  Minimal use of graphics                          2
  Easy forms for mouse non-users                   1
  No sound files                                   1
  Text with video clips                            1

Construction
  Pages short and simple/clean menus               6
  Consistent look and flow                         6
  Text-based                                       5
  Consideration of readability of tables           3
  No frames                                        3
  Use of anchor links                              2
  HTML-based                                       1
  Cascading style sheets                           1
  Use of net as authoring tool                     1

Checking
  Screen-reader checked                            9
  Have impaired reader test web site               2
  Compatibility with voice-recognition software    2