Jon Gunderson, UIUC
Christy Blew, UIUC
Hadi Bargi Rangin, UIUC
Charmane Corcoran, Michigan State
Margaret Londgren, Indiana
Bob Kahel, OSU
Brian McMurray, UIUC
Phil Kragnes, Minnesota
1. Update on CIC IT Accessibility Interest Group Conference at U. Minnesota (10 minutes)
2. Creation of a CIC Working Group on IT Accessibility and Usability (10 minutes)
3. Purchasing Policies (30 minutes)
4. Accessibility Testing Software Consortium (10 minutes)
Next Meeting will be April 6, 2007; 9:00 AM (CST), 10:00 AM (EST)
Everyone: Review and comment on suggested changes to the upcoming summer conference agenda/schedule during phone conference. Please provide comments and suggestions via the listserv prior to the next phone conference. Suggested changes in the agenda for the summer meeting reflect the following concerns:
Switching single present sessions to panel sessions to present diverse views on the topics. (for example the web accessibility session)
Switching times of sessions so sessions scheduled at the same time would be least likely to create choice conflicts for attendees. (for example not scheduling the document conversion session at the same time as the captioning session)
During the next phone conference, moderators for panel discussions will be suggested/selected. Moderators will select panel members after this.
Need to more clearly define the scope of the new CIC Accessibility Working Group as it is formalized with attention being paid to not having solely an IT focus.
Per a suggestion from Karen Partlow to Charmagne Corcoran, a representative group of three Accessibility Interest Group members will take part in a conference call to the CIC CIO group at an upcoming meeting. The group will begin the process of developing an advisory bridge between the Accessibility Interest Working Group to the CIOs. It was suggested that Jon Gunderson, Phil Kagnes and Charmagne Cocoran make the initial contact.
Develop a process for determining the kind of information CIOs think they need and what information the AIG needs to communicate to them. Develop a formalized process for this information exchange.
Develop a strategy for the development of partnerships with access to expertise in various areas related to accessibility. These partnerships could be with other CIC groups or other groups within the partner universities.
Develop strategy for getting mandates from upper level administration so that there is enforceable backing for development of accessible practices in areas like web development, purchasing, building access, etc. Begin to have compliance with accessibility goals part of the university’s standard reporting system.
Develop working plans that will lead to CIOs of each campus realizing that accessibility is a key issue that will require funding and staff. Create models of accessibility that will be meaningful to CIOs.
Through work with CIOs find ways to integrate accessibility into the university mission.
Develop financial models based on what other schools are doing that CIOs can use to plan budgets for achieving accessibility goals.
Develop means of determining the impact on the resources of various campus units for achieving accessibility across various functions like purchasing, web development, DSS services, libraries, etc.
Develop strategy for moving from policy to practice keeping in mind broad as well as smaller accessibility issues. Should include ongoing means of monitoring progress and continued adherence to accessibility goals and standards. Perhaps a model for conformance and instruction in means of achieving accessibility similar to what universities do for IT security.
Determine interest in a software consortium of pooled resources interested in developing accessible web development tools, Office document accessibility evaluators, learning management systems, etc.