Accessibility of Online Resources in Academic Libraries (Handout by Axel Schmetzke)

Axel Schmetzke; AHG Conference, Boulder, CO, Nov. 11, 2005

Accessibility of Online Resources in Academic Libraries (Handout by Axel Schmetzke)

I. Examples of policy components intended to put in place an all-encompassing accessible online infrastructure

1. From the UWSP Online Accessibility Policy and Implementation Plan <http://www.uwsp.edu/it/policies/accessibility/AccessibilityPolicy.htm>

Section: UWSP Online resources other than web pages

All parties involved in the creation, modification, replacement or procurement of online resources must strive for compliance with relevant Section 508 standards (especially, but not exclusively, Subsections 1194.2, 1194.21 and 1194.22). Where applicable, measures in the pursuit of accessible solutions must include, but are not limited to:

· gaining familiarity with, and implementing, state-of-the art accessible design practices for the product in question.

· considering alternatives to applications that do not lend themselves to barrier-free design.

· taking into account the accessibility of products considered for purchase.

· requiring vendors to provide documentation pertaining to the accessibility of their products.

· including accessibility in RFPs (Request for Proposals).

2. Proposed addition to UWSP Library’s Collection Development Policy

Section: Guidelines for selecting online information resources:

………

4. Accessibility for people with disabilities/compatibility with assistive technology

UWSP Online Accessibility policy mandates that developers and selectors of online resources must strive for compliance with relevant Section 508 standards. Working towards the establishment of an online information infrastructure that is accessible and usable for all, decision-making pertaining to the development or procurement of online resources will, if applicable, involve

· gaining familiarity with, and implementing, state-of-the art accessible design practices for the product in question.

· taking into account the accessibility of products or services under consideration.

· requiring vendors to provide documentation pertaining to their products' accessibility (conformance to Section 508).

· inquiring about their products' usability for users of assistive technology (outcomes of usability testing).

· consulting the literature about the accessibility of the considered resources.

· discussing more accessible alternatives.

· documenting the reasons for selecting an inaccessible resource.

· including accessibility as a desired resource quality in RFPs (Request for Proposals).

3. Recent addition to UWSP’s Multi-College Educational Courseware Guidelines

Compliance with UWSP Online Accessibility Policy

UWSP policy encourages the use of software that is accessible to all, i.e. that is compatible with screen readers and other assistive technology used by people with disabilities. Software requesters need to address the accessibility of the proposed product. It is recommended that the vendor be contacted for information about the product’s conformance with “Section 508” standards and that you consider alternatives for products lacking such conformance. (While non-compliance with Section 508 is not a reason for the denial of software requests, proposals should reflect a good-faith effort of having considered the accessibility of the proposed software.)

II. Question for job candidate

In the current library environment, in which information is increasingly offered online, what do you regard as some of the major access barriers for people with disabilities? If hired, what would you (as library director, collection development librarian, automation librarian, etc.) do to help reduce these barriers?

III. Information about the accessibility/usability of online library resources

Soon to come: another study spearheaded by Ron Stewart about the accessibility/usability of e-journals. Keep checking the following website: Technology Access Program. Oregon State University. http://tap.oregonstate.edu/research/ahg.htm.

Ron Stewart, Vivek Narendra and Axel Schmetzke, "Accessibility and Usability of Online Library Databases," Library Hi Tech, 23 (2) 2005: 265-286.

Suzanne Byerley and Mary Beth Chambers, "Accessibility of Web-based Library Databases: the Vendors’ Perspectives." Library Hi Tech. 21(3) 2003: 347-357.

Ron Stewart, Accessibility of Online Databases. A Usability Study of Research Databases. Currently posted data were collected Nov. 2002. The findings of the 2005 study (see above) may be posted here in the near future. http://tap.oregonstate.edu/research/ahg.htm

Axel Schmetzke’s Web Accessibility Survey Site at

http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/websurveys.htm (updated frequently)

The following section may be of particular interest:

(1) “Accessibility of Online Library Catalogs, Indexes and Databases, and Other Library Resources” at http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/websurveys.htm#onlinecat.

Axel Schmetzke’s “Accessible Web Design: Resources” page at

http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/pub_resources.htm (update frequently). “Web access in the campus and library environment” at http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/pub_resources.htm#campus_library.

IV. Specific evaluation comments (Appendix 2 of the above article by Stewart et al., 2005)

ABC-CLIO:

· poor link descriptions;

· skip-over navigation links not provided;

· initial query buttons not properly labeled;

· link and dialog boxes combined and confusing; and

· site cannot be accessed if scripting is turned off.

Bowker:

· ALT tags not always descriptive, or some of them are missing;

· non-essential page elements interfere with effective use and are not fully accessible or properly labeled; and

· site is unusable if scripts are turned off.

Brown University women's writing project:

· advanced search not possible with scripts turned off; site does inform user of issue.

Cambridge:

· complex page structure may make site difficult for novice users;

· site is not structured using a logical tabbing order;

· in basic search mode you have to navigate back to initiate a search;

· links not always properly labeled;

· individual records in query presentation are not clearly separated, but they can be determined by navigating through the query results; and

· advanced search function is easier to use than basic search function.

EBSCOhost:

· Site does not clearly indicate which search mode you are in;

· Can not select the specific search mode until you are into the search entry dialog.

· The site layout and structure may be confusing to a novice user.

HRAF Inc.:

· quick search function is easy to pass over; and

· site assistance is exceptionally good.

Emerald:

· skip-over navigation links not provided; and

· alt tags not always descriptive, or some of them are missing.

Engineering Information:

· in basic search, query can not be entered without a mouse click on the text entry field; and

· advanced search is fully accessible.

First Search:

· site has a tendency to loop and prevents moving back out of site to gateway; and

· site defaults to advanced search mode on loading.

ICPSR/University of Michigan:

· site usability is degraded due to graphics layout.

IEEE:

· quick search requires scripts to be turned on;

· query results are not presented if scripts are turned off; and

· documents are returned in a variety of formats, PDF files are in PDF image format.

Ingenta:

· site requires that an individual user account be set up, a process that requires scripts to be turned on.

IOP Axiom:

· a separate "ada" compliant site must be used which is not as functional or responsive as the java-based main site;

· connection problems with "ada" site that never seemed to occur with default site;

· page does not read properly but is still usable; and

· query results are provided in both HTML format and RTF.

Illinois Researcher Information Service (IRIS):

· text-only site is much more usable; and

· the telnet version was not accessible.

JSTOR:

· very complex page selection process in basic search mode;

· returned documents are scanned images and not accessible; and

· TIFF format option - while not text-based, this format is easier to convert into text with OCR software than other graphics formats.

LexisNexis Academic Universe:

· turning scripts off provides a more usable and informative site.

Marcive:

· very usable plain HTML-based site.

MathSciNet:

· no skip-over navigation links;

· Micromedex;

· requires a separate program; and

· unable to install or use with AT.

News Bank:

· site is very poorly constructed, but ii is usable.

NISC Biblioline:

· use of scripts makes site difficult to use with audio browsers;

· pages are frame-based; and

· with scripts turned off, pages require repeated refreshing.

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC):

· no skip-over navigation links.

OVID Technologies:

· complex site structure will require extensive user instruction;

· site construction and button placement are counterintuitive;

· poor element labeling makes navigation cumbersome; and

· repeated AT software crashes when retrieving documents.

Patent database:

· very extensive menus in some dialog boxes.

Project Muse:

· not all images have alt tags;

· no skip navigation links; and

· some features of the site are unusable with scripting turned off.

Proquest:

· text only site is much more usable.

Pub Med:

· element descriptions and labels are confusing; and

· highly recommend using the "text-only" site.

RDS:

· poor site construction site severely affects usability; and

· improperly structured code results in numerous page errors.

RLG's Eureka:

· document retrieval requires frequent refreshing of page;

· slowness of site affects usability when scripts are turned off; and

· advanced search is more usable with scripting turned off.

Roth's Publishing:

· extensive navigation required to access query results; and

· extensive dialog boxes and menu selections made advanced search very cumbersome.

Science Online:

· poor element labeling makes site very difficult to use;

· site coding errors are distracting; and

· site is extremely complex.

SciFinder Scholar Access:

· requires that a separate program be installed on computer; and

· program interface is not usable with AT.

SilverPlatter:

· site launches a new browser with each operation;

· pages are frame based and not properly linked;

· very difficult to use site with audio browser;

· extensive navigation required to get to query; and

· site caused repeated failure in audio browsers.

Standard & Poors:

· site is constructed of improperly linked frames; and

· once proper frame is located query is straight forward.

University Microfilms Inc. (UMI):

· text-only site is much more usable;

· accessibility help is provided in text site; and

· page load errors required repeated refreshing of queries.

Web of Science:

· navigation required through several pages to get to search page;

· search links are located at end of page;

· site is extremely difficult to use;

· site is unusable with scripting turned off; and

· site caused repeated crashes of AT software.

Wilson Web:

· needs javascript support by the browser;

· frames design is inaccessible with lynx; and

· site is unusable when scripts are turned off.

IV. Questions for vendors

· What efforts has your company undertaken so far to make the pages of your product accessible to all, including people with disabilities?

· Does your product comply with the W3C/WAI Guidelines and/or the Access Board Standards (Sect. 508, Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998)?

· With which commonly used screen readers has your product been tested? Could you give us a demonstration?

· The data collected by Ron Stewart et al. (see III. above) point to certain accessibility/usability problems. Is your company aware of these problems? What plans are in place to get these problems resolved?

· What is your schedule for making (further) improvements concerning the accessibility of your product?

· Is there a web site to which you post information about the accessibility/usability of your product?

V. Discussion forum

AXSLIB-L. Library access discussion forum operated by EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information).

Administrative address: .

AXSLIB archives & how to join info: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/axslib-l.html

VI. Help with the revision of the ACRL Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services

The “ACRL Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services" are currently undergoing another revision cycle. The current version does not address accessibility.

Many libraries model their distance learning policies after the ACRL guidelines. As long as these guidelines do not incorporate concern for accessibility for all, chances are that this concern will not be on the radar screen of those librarians developing respective policies for their institution.

Fortunately, the Guidelines Committee of the ACRL’s Distance Learning Section (DLS), which is preparing the new revision, seems to be very open to input and encourages interested parties to participate.

If you would like to make your voice heard, you have a number of options:

· Contact the DLS Guidelines Committee Chair, Rob Morrison, at or 435-797-1477.

· Check the DLS’s Web site for information about the revisions and about opportunities on how to participate in this process.
http://caspian.switchinc.org/~distlearn/news/Guidelines_announce2005.html.

URL for the current version: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/guidelinesdistancelearning.htm

VII. Looking for a project?

1. Create a "Clearinghouse" that would provide vendor/product-specific accessibility information (e.g. links to vendor’s accessibility statement; link to pertinent research and/or a brief summary of the research findings). This would be a great help for collection developers who wish to inform themselves about the accessibility of the products they are considering for procurement. The existence of such a site may also send a positive signal to (competing) vendors.

2. Conduct research into the formats in which “full-text articles” are provided in commercial databases. Determine the extent to which inaccessible formats are used exclusively (i.e. as only option). Explore the reasons for their use and identify the “culprits” (database aggregators, journal publishers, others?). Discuss who accessibility advocates should be targeting in their efforts to improve the situation.

Axel Schmetzke, Ph.D.

Library

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Stevens Point, WI 54481

Tel: 715-346-4658

Email:

1