E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Wed, May 17 2000 11:35AM
Subject: Barriers to accessibility
No previous message | Next message →

Hello to WebAIM ListSev folks
I wanted to get some feedback from LAAP partners as well as the
rest of the listserv so please read on and give me your thoughts. The
WebAIM partners at USU have been talking with others in postsecondary ed
about barriers to institutional coordination. Briefly, the main points
(barriers) are summarized below. I would love to hear from any of you who
would like to comment on these barriers. I apologize for the length, but I
really think you can read it in about 5 minutes. You can either read the
short or long summary. I am particulary interested in knowing if these
elements are present at your institution/organization.
Thanks in advance for your help and your thoughts. - Cyndi Rowland
Short Summary:
1. Institutions don't know who is involved in web design at their institution
2. Few policies exist that coordinate any aspect of websites (not
accessibility)
3. Designers awareness/skills/motivation to make the changes
4. Turn over of web designers
5. Old versions of adaptive equipment
6. Errors made by the student who does not know how to use the adaptive
equipment
Long Summary:
1. The sheer scale of the institution may prohibit coordination because
individuals are unknown to anyone taking the lead in a coordination role.
We know that many institutions do not even know who all the individuals are
that are placing web-content on the institutional site. Network
administrators know who have servers but this does not mean that anyone in
a central administrative position would be able to gather numbers, let
alone names & contact points, of web designers at their institutions. This
greatly affects coordination of accessibility since they can't even contact
"all the players" to receive training or coordinate accessibility issues.
2. Many institutions do not have articulated policies or regulations to
coordinate their many websites. It appears that most institutions are just
now developing policies to provide central coordination (e.g., because they
want the institutional word mark on every page or because they would like a
similar navigation through the site). These types of policies could
provide a vehicle for coordinating accessibility requirements as well.
However, they will be harmed by #1 above (lack of knowing who gets this
information).
3. Many web designers do not attend to accessible design. I know this is
clearly the case for most designers in postsecondary education (project
data verifies this to be true). Of course there are distinctions between
those who don't know about it and those who do and choose not to change
over time. Within this barrier I am thinking that we circle back around to
the discussion we had earlier in this ListServ on motivation for web
designers to change their practices.
3. We wonder a great deal about turn over in web developers at
postsecondary institutions. We have preliminary data (515 responses to a
survey completed by web developers) to suggest that about half of web
designers fufil these duties in a part-time role. Perhaps they have other
assignments and web development is an add-on. Perhaps they are part-time
employees. We are also aware of several situations where web developers
are paid very poorly. For example, the positions of our USU institutional
(full time) webmaster is currently open. The posted salary is $25,000
/year (yes you read that correctly). We are aware of other institutions
with similar stories. For us this begs the question, "How long will these
highly skilled people stay in postsecondary ed?" In addition to part-time
or poorly paid employees are those that are gobbled up by high paying jobs
in the business sector. Eduction doesn't have a good history keeping up
with business. Clearly high rates of turn over will hurt accessibility
until all developers are trained initially with the ability to design in an
accessible way.
4. An academic culture of freedom is sometimes generalized to mean "we can
put anything down in any format we want" without oversight. Where the
traditions of academic freedom of content meet the regulatory world of the
federal government tension is bound to occur. I suspect, if this is indeed
a barrier, simple education would help separate the argument of faculty
content versus form. However I could be wrong on this one.
5. One of the institutional barriers to accessibility is the presence of a
poorly funded disability student center. We have heard several stories
that confirm this. For example, if an institution purchased several pieces
of adaptive equipment (e.g., JAWS, ZoomText) in 1996 they would not have
current versions. If these assistive devices populate campus computer labs
students may not have access to all information. This is because many
feature are simply not supported in older versions. The same can be said
for students or faculty that do not download current browsers. It is
difficult for designers to "degrade gracefully" from out-of-date versions
of adaptive equipment or browsers when there are SO many elements to
consider.
6. Sometimes the end user poses a barrier to accessibility. Some consumers
may not know how to best work their adaptive tech devices to make use of
design features found on the web. I put this item in as a possible
institutional barrier because I wonder if institutions could make sure that
"expert" are available on the use of the CURRENT version of the technology.
If so, then new students could be better trained on how to use the devices.




< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
Project Director, Web Accessibility In Mind (Web AIM)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-6800
(435) 797-3381
FAX (435) 797-2044

From: Prof. Norm Coombs
Date: Wed, May 17 2000 9:58PM
Subject: Re: Barriers to accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi:
I looked through both your short and long explanations. My experience from
training several hundred web masters on accessible design is that points 1,
2, 3, 4 are all very true. I also think that in planning and discussion we
should treat points 5 and 6 in a different category. We are mixing 2
different sets of access issues here.
1-4 is about providing an accessible information technology environment.
Items 5 and 6 are about whether or not there is adequate access to the
accessible information technology. Both are important but are different
enough to be worth separating.
What's the solution for points 1-4? The creation of institution-wide
parameters for web pages could help. With or without that, these points
suggest that raising awareness and providing training is going to be a long
term, continuing job. It isn't just reaching today's web masters. The
turn over makes this a continuing maintenance type activity. THEREFORE! I
am convinced we need training materials that are exceedingly simple and
clear. There has been some discussion on a couple lists recently where
knowledgeable people are complaining vigorously about the technical
obscurity of the existing WAI guidelines. I know many intelligent,
computer literate poeple who cannot make out parts of these guidelines.
There is some evidence that they have sometimes been counterproductive by
intimidating well meaning people. Web masters who can't understand the
guidelines conclude that access is too difficult and good intentions turn
sour and end in discouragement. While we want to remain true to the WAI
materials and want to appreciate the fabulous work they have done, we MUST
provide documents and training that are many, many times better and simpler
than WAI has provided. We need materials that will help us readily train
the continuing turn over of web personnel. The job has to be made simpler
and clearer.
One of the present problems is that adaptive technology has been moving out
of the computer center and into disabled student services. This is a
mistake but seems to be an irreversable process. It is a mistake because
DSS is the way to take a problem out of the mainstream of the university
and put it into a disability ghetto where it can be out of sight. Further,
DSS is must more poorly funded than are computer centers. The mainstream
of the college can wash its hands of bothering with the problem and do it
on the cheap. Of course, the result is that it is frequently done poorly.
Not only is the equipment worse than that of the rest of the campus
(discrimination) but most DSS people lack the technical know-how to provide
adequate training.
The Office of Civil Rights in California also laments this trend and
insists that the entire campus must take ownership of disabled students and
take ownership of their information technology needs. I'm not sure how to
pull this one off. I would recommend that the DSS people build strong
relations with upper administration and also work hard to network with
other relevant departments on campus and break down ghetto walls by active
networking.
Norm
At 06:35 PM 5/17/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello to WebAIM ListSev folks
> I wanted to get some feedback from LAAP partners as well as the
>rest of the listserv so please read on and give me your thoughts. The
>WebAIM partners at USU have been talking with others in postsecondary ed
>about barriers to institutional coordination. Briefly, the main points
>(barriers) are summarized below. I would love to hear from any of you who
>would like to comment on these barriers. I apologize for the length, but I
>really think you can read it in about 5 minutes. You can either read the
>short or long summary. I am particulary interested in knowing if these
>elements are present at your institution/organization.
>
>Thanks in advance for your help and your thoughts. - Cyndi Rowland
>
>Short Summary:
>1. Institutions don't know who is involved in web design at their
institution
>2. Few policies exist that coordinate any aspect of websites (not
>accessibility)
>3. Designers awareness/skills/motivation to make the changes
>4. Turn over of web designers
>5. Old versions of adaptive equipment
>6. Errors made by the student who does not know how to use the adaptive
>equipment
>
>Long Summary:
>
>1. The sheer scale of the institution may prohibit coordination because
>individuals are unknown to anyone taking the lead in a coordination role.
>We know that many institutions do not even know who all the individuals are
>that are placing web-content on the institutional site. Network
>administrators know who have servers but this does not mean that anyone in
>a central administrative position would be able to gather numbers, let
>alone names & contact points, of web designers at their institutions. This
>greatly affects coordination of accessibility since they can't even contact
>"all the players" to receive training or coordinate accessibility issues.
>
>2. Many institutions do not have articulated policies or regulations to
>coordinate their many websites. It appears that most institutions are just
>now developing policies to provide central coordination (e.g., because they
>want the institutional word mark on every page or because they would like a
>similar navigation through the site). These types of policies could
>provide a vehicle for coordinating accessibility requirements as well.
>However, they will be harmed by #1 above (lack of knowing who gets this
>information).
>
>3. Many web designers do not attend to accessible design. I know this is
>clearly the case for most designers in postsecondary education (project
>data verifies this to be true). Of course there are distinctions between
>those who don't know about it and those who do and choose not to change
>over time. Within this barrier I am thinking that we circle back around to
>the discussion we had earlier in this ListServ on motivation for web
>designers to change their practices.
>
>3. We wonder a great deal about turn over in web developers at
>postsecondary institutions. We have preliminary data (515 responses to a
>survey completed by web developers) to suggest that about half of web
>designers fufil these duties in a part-time role. Perhaps they have other
>assignments and web development is an add-on. Perhaps they are part-time
>employees. We are also aware of several situations where web developers
>are paid very poorly. For example, the positions of our USU institutional
>(full time) webmaster is currently open. The posted salary is $25,000
>/year (yes you read that correctly). We are aware of other institutions
>with similar stories. For us this begs the question, "How long will these
>highly skilled people stay in postsecondary ed?" In addition to part-time
>or poorly paid employees are those that are gobbled up by high paying jobs
>in the business sector. Eduction doesn't have a good history keeping up
>with business. Clearly high rates of turn over will hurt accessibility
>until all developers are trained initially with the ability to design in an
>accessible way.
>
>4. An academic culture of freedom is sometimes generalized to mean "we can
>put anything down in any format we want" without oversight. Where the
>traditions of academic freedom of content meet the regulatory world of the
>federal government tension is bound to occur. I suspect, if this is indeed
>a barrier, simple education would help separate the argument of faculty
>content versus form. However I could be wrong on this one.
>
>5. One of the institutional barriers to accessibility is the presence of a
>poorly funded disability student center. We have heard several stories
>that confirm this. For example, if an institution purchased several pieces
>of adaptive equipment (e.g., JAWS, ZoomText) in 1996 they would not have
>current versions. If these assistive devices populate campus computer labs
>students may not have access to all information. This is because many
>feature are simply not supported in older versions. The same can be said
>for students or faculty that do not download current browsers. It is
>difficult for designers to "degrade gracefully" from out-of-date versions
>of adaptive equipment or browsers when there are SO many elements to
>consider.
>
>6. Sometimes the end user poses a barrier to accessibility. Some consumers
>may not know how to best work their adaptive tech devices to make use of
>design features found on the web. I put this item in as a possible
>institutional barrier because I wonder if institutions could make sure that
>"expert" are available on the use of the CURRENT version of the technology.
>If so, then new students could be better trained on how to use the devices.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
>Project Director, Web Accessibility In Mind (Web AIM)
>Center for Persons with Disabilities
>Utah State University
>Logan, Utah 84322-6800
>(435) 797-3381
>FAX (435) 797-2044
>
>
>
>

From: Tim Smith
Date: Wed, May 17 2000 11:55PM
Subject: RE: Barriers to accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

I would like to take a moment and comment on your short summary. I
apologize if my comments reflect my lack of time to spend with the issues in
depth.
Number 1
First, I would be careful to define who we mean when we say "Institutions"
Who is the institution? Is it the administration, the IT specialists, the
library and media folks or the webmasters? I think one major problem with
institutional coordination is that we often do not have a clear definition
of who at a given institution is responsible for coordinating web efforts.
Is it a group of administrators who know very little about technical issues,
a group of technicians who understand little about institutional missions,
some other group or a combination?
Number 2
As a result of number one, we end up with number 2. The sheer number of web
designers makes it very difficult to direct any sustainable coordinated
efforts.
Number 3
I think number 3 deals with why web designers don't make changes. Instead,
we should focus on if the "Institution" (whomever we decide this is) has
the responsibility to raise the level of awareness, provide the training to
help web developers gain the skills and provide motivations for them to rise
to the level of accessibility. My hypotheses is that most institutions
don't do any of these as it relates to accessibility or even in web design
in general. Might there also be a lack of awareness not only on the part of
the designers but with the institutution itself.
Number 4
I think this is an important impediment a universities success with regard
to web development. We employ a high number of students for web design and
pay scales are so low in education for full time webmasters that we often
lose them to industry.
Number 5
I don't know quite what you mean by adaptive equipment.
I know I visited a state institution for blind a year ago and was appalled
to see that they were using two year old browsers. The reason they had not
upgraded is that the administration did not understand that newer browsers
would significantly improve their access to accessible materials and it
puzzled me why the system administrators responsible for the software were
not more aware of such a simple issue. Again this may point to a general
lack of awareness institution wide. Is old adaptive equipment because of
budget restraints, awareness problems, time contraints (overworked technical
specialists), laziness, etc?
Number 6
Not sure how this relates to the idea of institutional coordination.
Overall my barriers would be:
1. The decentralized or fragmented environment most insititutions face with
regard to web development.
2. The lack of a centralized plan and policies to help guide the
institutions web efforts.
3. The lack of awareness institution wide.
4. The lack of resources including monetary and leadership resources to
properly address the issue (developing a plan, policies, and overseeing
their implementation).
5. The lack of a perceived need to even worry about the issue.
I threw these out really quickly so they open for discussion.
Thank you for creating the forum for dialogue.
Tim G. Smith

From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Thu, May 18 2000 4:42AM
Subject: Re: Barriers to accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Norm,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with your statement that numbers
1-4 are in a different category than are 5 and 6. Unfortunately all 6 can
create the same end result. Namely, that of an educational site that is
not fully accessible. I do think that from an institutional standpoint
things can be done to mitigate the problems posed by numbers 5 and 6,
however, I am not sure where the actual responsibility lies. As an FYI our
institution places all assistive technology in the campus-wide computer
labs. This is an important aspect of the inclusion for USU students with
disabilities, however, DSS struggles to fund current versions of software
and AT, and believe me when I say they try a lot of different ways to get
this important line item in their budget. The support from central
administration just does not seem to be there.
Norm, your mention of training web developers hit the problem dead
on. We need web designers that fully understand the fairly simple process
of making their sites accessible. Of course now that we are into an
inservice effort we see the value of a massive preservice effort (i.e., few
are receiving training in accessiblity when they initially learn html). I
also agree that the WAI guidelines are quite complex. Actually that is one
of the reasons WebAIM got its start. I worry over time, however, that we
(at WebAIM) could easily fall into the same trap. Once designers
understand the issues they WANT more technical information. Data from our
field-tests suggest that they want sample code so they can refer to it
later. These examples can be very complex unless presented in a
face-to-face "contextualized" manner. I'm not sure how the information we
are developing could possible stand alone and not be complex. I guess we'll
have to watch and see over time. - Cyndi

>Hi:
>
>I looked through both your short and long explanations. My experience from
>training several hundred web masters on accessible design is that points 1,
>2, 3, 4 are all very true. I also think that in planning and discussion we
>should treat points 5 and 6 in a different category. We are mixing 2
>different sets of access issues here.
>
>1-4 is about providing an accessible information technology environment.
>Items 5 and 6 are about whether or not there is adequate access to the
>accessible information technology. Both are important but are different
>enough to be worth separating.
>
>What's the solution for points 1-4? The creation of institution-wide
>parameters for web pages could help. With or without that, these points
>suggest that raising awareness and providing training is going to be a long
>term, continuing job. It isn't just reaching today's web masters. The
>turn over makes this a continuing maintenance type activity. THEREFORE! I
>am convinced we need training materials that are exceedingly simple and
>clear. There has been some discussion on a couple lists recently where
>knowledgeable people are complaining vigorously about the technical
>obscurity of the existing WAI guidelines. I know many intelligent,
>computer literate poeple who cannot make out parts of these guidelines.
>There is some evidence that they have sometimes been counterproductive by
>intimidating well meaning people. Web masters who can't understand the
>guidelines conclude that access is too difficult and good intentions turn
>sour and end in discouragement. While we want to remain true to the WAI
>materials and want to appreciate the fabulous work they have done, we MUST
>provide documents and training that are many, many times better and simpler
>than WAI has provided. We need materials that will help us readily train
>the continuing turn over of web personnel. The job has to be made simpler
>and clearer.
>
>One of the present problems is that adaptive technology has been moving out
>of the computer center and into disabled student services. This is a
>mistake but seems to be an irreversable process. It is a mistake because
>DSS is the way to take a problem out of the mainstream of the university
>and put it into a disability ghetto where it can be out of sight. Further,
>DSS is must more poorly funded than are computer centers. The mainstream
>of the college can wash its hands of bothering with the problem and do it
>on the cheap. Of course, the result is that it is frequently done poorly.
>Not only is the equipment worse than that of the rest of the campus
>(discrimination) but most DSS people lack the technical know-how to provide
>adequate training.
>
>The Office of Civil Rights in California also laments this trend and
>insists that the entire campus must take ownership of disabled students and
>take ownership of their information technology needs. I'm not sure how to
>pull this one off. I would recommend that the DSS people build strong
>relations with upper administration and also work hard to network with
>other relevant departments on campus and break down ghetto walls by active
>networking.
>
>Norm
>
>At 06:35 PM 5/17/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>Hello to WebAIM ListSev folks
>> I wanted to get some feedback from LAAP partners as well as the
>>rest of the listserv so please read on and give me your thoughts. The
>>WebAIM partners at USU have been talking with others in postsecondary ed
>>about barriers to institutional coordination. Briefly, the main points
>>(barriers) are summarized below. I would love to hear from any of you who
>>would like to comment on these barriers. I apologize for the length, but I
>>really think you can read it in about 5 minutes. You can either read the
>>short or long summary. I am particulary interested in knowing if these
>>elements are present at your institution/organization.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for your help and your thoughts. - Cyndi Rowland
>>
>>Short Summary:
>>1. Institutions don't know who is involved in web design at their
>institution
>>2. Few policies exist that coordinate any aspect of websites (not
>>accessibility)
>>3. Designers awareness/skills/motivation to make the changes
>>4. Turn over of web designers
>>5. Old versions of adaptive equipment
>>6. Errors made by the student who does not know how to use the adaptive
>>equipment
>>
>>Long Summary:
>>
>>1. The sheer scale of the institution may prohibit coordination because
>>individuals are unknown to anyone taking the lead in a coordination role.
>>We know that many institutions do not even know who all the individuals are
>>that are placing web-content on the institutional site. Network
>>administrators know who have servers but this does not mean that anyone in
>>a central administrative position would be able to gather numbers, let
>>alone names & contact points, of web designers at their institutions. This
>>greatly affects coordination of accessibility since they can't even contact
>>"all the players" to receive training or coordinate accessibility issues.
>>
>>2. Many institutions do not have articulated policies or regulations to
>>coordinate their many websites. It appears that most institutions are just
>>now developing policies to provide central coordination (e.g., because they
>>want the institutional word mark on every page or because they would like a
>>similar navigation through the site). These types of policies could
>>provide a vehicle for coordinating accessibility requirements as well.
>>However, they will be harmed by #1 above (lack of knowing who gets this
>>information).
>>
>>3. Many web designers do not attend to accessible design. I know this is
>>clearly the case for most designers in postsecondary education (project
>>data verifies this to be true). Of course there are distinctions between
>>those who don't know about it and those who do and choose not to change
>>over time. Within this barrier I am thinking that we circle back around to
>>the discussion we had earlier in this ListServ on motivation for web
>>designers to change their practices.
>>
>>3. We wonder a great deal about turn over in web developers at
>>postsecondary institutions. We have preliminary data (515 responses to a
>>survey completed by web developers) to suggest that about half of web
>>designers fufil these duties in a part-time role. Perhaps they have other
>>assignments and web development is an add-on. Perhaps they are part-time
>>employees. We are also aware of several situations where web developers
>>are paid very poorly. For example, the positions of our USU institutional
>>(full time) webmaster is currently open. The posted salary is $25,000
>>/year (yes you read that correctly). We are aware of other institutions
>>with similar stories. For us this begs the question, "How long will these
>>highly skilled people stay in postsecondary ed?" In addition to part-time
>>or poorly paid employees are those that are gobbled up by high paying jobs
>>in the business sector. Eduction doesn't have a good history keeping up
>>with business. Clearly high rates of turn over will hurt accessibility
>>until all developers are trained initially with the ability to design in an
>>accessible way.
>>
>>4. An academic culture of freedom is sometimes generalized to mean "we can
>>put anything down in any format we want" without oversight. Where the
>>traditions of academic freedom of content meet the regulatory world of the
>>federal government tension is bound to occur. I suspect, if this is indeed
>>a barrier, simple education would help separate the argument of faculty
>>content versus form. However I could be wrong on this one.
>>
>>5. One of the institutional barriers to accessibility is the presence of a
>>poorly funded disability student center. We have heard several stories
>>that confirm this. For example, if an institution purchased several pieces
>>of adaptive equipment (e.g., JAWS, ZoomText) in 1996 they would not have
>>current versions. If these assistive devices populate campus computer labs
>>students may not have access to all information. This is because many
>>feature are simply not supported in older versions. The same can be said
>>for students or faculty that do not download current browsers. It is
>>difficult for designers to "degrade gracefully" from out-of-date versions
>>of adaptive equipment or browsers when there are SO many elements to
>>consider.
>>
>>6. Sometimes the end user poses a barrier to accessibility. Some consumers
>>may not know how to best work their adaptive tech devices to make use of
>>design features found on the web. I put this item in as a possible
>>institutional barrier because I wonder if institutions could make sure that
>>"expert" are available on the use of the CURRENT version of the technology.
>>If so, then new students could be better trained on how to use the devices.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
>>Project Director, Web Accessibility In Mind (Web AIM)
>>Center for Persons with Disabilities
>>Utah State University
>>Logan, Utah 84322-6800
>>(435) 797-3381
>>FAX (435) 797-2044
>>
>>
>>
>>

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
Director, Collaborative Early Childhood Special Education Program
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 University Blvd.
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-6800
(435) 797-3381
FAX (435) 797-2044

From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Thu, May 18 2000 4:46AM
Subject: RE: Barriers to accessibility
← Previous message | No next message

Tim,
You provided some great material to digest. I kind of like the way
you reorganized the barriers. It makes sense to me. Thanks - Cyndi


>I would like to take a moment and comment on your short summary. I
>apologize if my comments reflect my lack of time to spend with the issues in
>depth.
>
>Number 1
>
>First, I would be careful to define who we mean when we say "Institutions"
>Who is the institution? Is it the administration, the IT specialists, the
>library and media folks or the webmasters? I think one major problem with
>institutional coordination is that we often do not have a clear definition
>of who at a given institution is responsible for coordinating web efforts.
>Is it a group of administrators who know very little about technical issues,
>a group of technicians who understand little about institutional missions,
>some other group or a combination?
>
>Number 2
>
>As a result of number one, we end up with number 2. The sheer number of web
>designers makes it very difficult to direct any sustainable coordinated
>efforts.
>
>Number 3
>
>I think number 3 deals with why web designers don't make changes. Instead,
>we should focus on if the "Institution" (whomever we decide this is) has
>the responsibility to raise the level of awareness, provide the training to
>help web developers gain the skills and provide motivations for them to rise
>to the level of accessibility. My hypotheses is that most institutions
>don't do any of these as it relates to accessibility or even in web design
>in general. Might there also be a lack of awareness not only on the part of
>the designers but with the institutution itself.
>
>Number 4
>
>I think this is an important impediment a universities success with regard
>to web development. We employ a high number of students for web design and
>pay scales are so low in education for full time webmasters that we often
>lose them to industry.
>
>Number 5
>I don't know quite what you mean by adaptive equipment.
>I know I visited a state institution for blind a year ago and was appalled
>to see that they were using two year old browsers. The reason they had not
>upgraded is that the administration did not understand that newer browsers
>would significantly improve their access to accessible materials and it
>puzzled me why the system administrators responsible for the software were
>not more aware of such a simple issue. Again this may point to a general
>lack of awareness institution wide. Is old adaptive equipment because of
>budget restraints, awareness problems, time contraints (overworked technical
>specialists), laziness, etc?
>
>Number 6
>
>Not sure how this relates to the idea of institutional coordination.
>
>Overall my barriers would be:
>
>1. The decentralized or fragmented environment most insititutions face with
>regard to web development.
>2. The lack of a centralized plan and policies to help guide the
>institutions web efforts.
>3. The lack of awareness institution wide.
>4. The lack of resources including monetary and leadership resources to
>properly address the issue (developing a plan, policies, and overseeing
>their implementation).
>5. The lack of a perceived need to even worry about the issue.
>
>I threw these out really quickly so they open for discussion.
>
>Thank you for creating the forum for dialogue.
>
>Tim G. Smith

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
Director, Collaborative Early Childhood Special Education Program
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 University Blvd.
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-6800
(435) 797-3381
FAX (435) 797-2044