E-mail List Archives
Thread: Accessible portals
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Janet Perkins Corbett
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:39PM
Subject: Accessible portals
No previous message | Next message →
As with all claims, it's good to actually check out the level of
accessibility. SCT/Luminis portal developers also make the same claim
re: W3C's WAI guidelines, but they just BARELY meet Level 1 guidelines.
A bit off-topic: And if an institution asks SCT for better
accessibility, they call it an "enhancement" and refer to their
accounting dept. (yes, I'm still fuming)
>PHPWebSite - [http://phpwebsite.sourceforge.net]
>From their page... Developed by the Web Technology Group at
>Appalachian State University, phpWebSite provides a complete web site
>content management system ( CMS ). All client output is XHTML 1.0 and
>meets the W3Cs Web Accessibility Initiative requirements.
>This is the only CMS I have ever come across that even makes such a
claim.
>Michael Roush, Technology Consultant
Janet Perkins Corbett
Wyoming INstitute for Disabilities
http://wind.uwyo.edu/
(307)766-2506
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Don't SAY things. What you ARE stands over you the while, and thunders
so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Stewart, Ron
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:41PM
Subject: RE: Accessible portals
← Previous message | Next message →
We just completed an evaluation of the Luminis Portal system, since
Oregon State is considering its adoption.
Ron
From: Stewart, Ron
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:41PM
Subject: RE: Accessible portals
← Previous message | Next message →
Jon,
It is in the process of being posted on our website, here is the link
which also will take you to our related work on the Banner system, and
library databases. We are also working on an evaluation of
E-Journals currently which should be completed by the end of the summer.
http://tap.oregonstate.edu/research/
Ron
From: Stewart, Ron
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:42PM
Subject: RE: Accessible portals
← Previous message | Next message →
Norman,
I always appreciate any and all constructive criticism, and are always
seeing to improve on our work. We always also solicit a response from
the vendor involved as well, but that almost never resulted in any
meaningful dialog, in fact in regard to SCT the opposite results has
occurred. The report is actually typical of our very pragmatic work
here at OSU in regards to can the application and/or interface actually
be used by a person with a disability for its intended purpose, using
commonly available assistive technologies. It is based on a standard
evaluation template we use for all of our work here at Oregon State.
The report is based on the evaluation protocols I developed here at OSU
which are a hybrid of WAI and Section 508 primarily focused on
usability. They actually predate the Section 508 standards, and were
initially developed at the same time the WAI standards were under
development. As most know, usability and compliance have little to do
with each other in the real world use of technologies by persons
primarily with print related access issues, and to be truly honest
everyone who tries to use most of these very user-unfriendly systems.
Here is the link to the documents we use for our process:
http://tap.oregonstate.edu/standards.htm, as a part of the policy draft
by clicking on the applicable standards link you will find a comparison
of our standards with both the WAI and with Section 508. This policy
development effort is an ongoing project, and it is our hope that we
will continue to refine and improve our process.
Ron
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:42PM
Subject: RE: Accessible portals
← Previous message | Next message →
Ron,
Thanks for sharing!
I see a big disconnect between the evaluation, 508 compliance,
WAI testing, and usability in this report. There are a few
characterizations I'd like to mention, such as the reference to frames
and default screen reader use. Section 508 compliance only requires the
frames be titled appropriately. Other issues, such as the JavaScript
reference are inconsistent - even if the screen reader can access the
information with JavaScript, it may not be 508 compliant. This is
addressed by section 508, 1194.22(l) "When pages utilized scripting...".
Please don't take these as negative, just observations.
I guess it is just a pet peeve of mine; 508 compliance is not
equal to WAI, usability, or end-user access via assistive technology!
I'm curious as to if you have your own guidelines you are using to test
against? Is the application available on the Internet now for public
review?
Regards,
Norman Robinson
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:43PM
Subject: RE: Accessible portals
← Previous message | No next message
Ron,
Can you publish the results of your evaluation?
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:37:58 -0700
>From: "Stewart, Ron" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Accessible portals
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>We just completed an evaluation of the Luminis Portal system,
since
>Oregon State is considering its adoption.
>
>Ron
>
>