Live captioning by Ai-Media
TRESHANI
PERERA: Welcome everybody!
We are going to get started here in just a minute or two.
Thank you all for being here.
Welcome everyone, it is great to have you here!
We are going to start at one after.
We have got a lot of content.
So we will give one minute before I hand over to our panelists.
Alright.
I have 101.
So we are going to get started.
I am going to introduce our chair of the BTAA group.
Frank, take it away!
--
FRANK
SWEIS: Good afternoon, thank you for joining us!
So we are going to go straight into a content in just a moment but
before we do that I just want to go over a quick introduction of our
speakers and a few other notes about today's webinar.
So as was Richard, I am Frank Sweis, I am becoming chair of the Big Ten
academic Alliance library accessibility group and also the
User Experience Librarian of Northwestern University libraries.
With me today is Amy Drayer, the University interface developer at
Minnesota university libraries, Binky Lush, Library strategic
technologist at Penn State University Libraries, Heidi
Schroeder, accessibility coordinator of Michigan State
University Libraries, and Nancy Sims, Director of Copyright and
Scholarly Communication.
The have now been a couple of webinars for us and other library
groups going over these changes the we are going to quickly go over
these a talk about the context for these.
So we will then frame the new ADA those in the library, and go of
exceptions.
What may or may not be an exception.
I will take on copyright, as well as some recommendations and
resources that we want to make available to everyone, to leave
this webinar way.
And then will have a question and discussion session.
Just as a note, this session is being recorded so we will make that
available after this webinar.
But we will stop the recording after we get to the questions and
discussions portion of the webinar.
Lastly, just a quick disclaimer.
Most speakers are not attorneys and none can give legal advice.
Opinions are their own and are not reflective of their employers are
the BTAA.
The with that, we are going to go ahead and get started on our
presentation.
The ADA Title II changes.
Let's do a quick review.
The first is the language itself.
These are the requires men's as outlined in the ADA.
We do have a direct link we can give you.
All web content and mobile applications a public entity
provides must comply with WCAG 2.1 data.
This is anything collective privately offer of agencies.
Self entities of more than 50,000 compliance will begin on April 24,
2026, and of entities of population of less than 50,000 complaints
begins on April 26, 2027.
In this the public entity can demonstrate the compliance with the
requirements will result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the service program, or activity, or an undue financial or
administrative burden.
And we will have more than that later in the webinar.
So why these new balls?
Will the general federal agencies have consistently notes the public
university websites and digital tools must be accessible.
Universities have become increasingly reliant on technology
for learning, working and transactions such as reserving
books and paying for parking.
Technology offers benefits of ease-of-use and privacy.
This law ensures the same benefits are available to those with
disabilities.
Whether it is accessing the same information, engaging in the same
interactions are conducting the same transactions that technology
of post-nondisabled individuals.
And so what is this impact?
In a nutshell, technology must be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals disabilities.
General universities may no longer rely on alternate versions are
overworked events to address barriers created by inaccessible
technology.
And since anybody can create digital content such as tectonic
documents, universities will need a cross campus effort to comply.
This will include staff training, resources to identify which tool
systems or websites currently do not comply with these requirements,
and what the barriers are and what will need to be remediated.
Lastly, ongoing beta beds as digital tools for this technology
continue to evolve.
I would like to hand it over to a metre talk about framing diesels in
the likely context.
AMY
DRAYER: Thank you so much Frank.
This is a me.
We will take a quick moment to frame the ATA in the library
context.
So briefly, the WCAG are a set of criteria for how to minimally make
the web more accessible to people with disabilities.
The new federal regulation revision specifically identifies WCAG 2.1
which came out in 2018.
This is the minimum anybody should be aiming for.
The revision also states it must be usable; which compliance does
not guarantee.
You might want to also reset wet figure state has requirements, and
if so, if they apply to your institution.
Check your local institutions policies.
When the federal regulation a set WCAG 2.1, just state or local
institution may have a harder standard that you must meet such as
WCAG 2.2.
If your state is set to a lot was standard, such as WCAG 2.1, you
will need to meet the federal baseline of version 2.1.
We will now identify four types of library content and ways to meet
digital accessibility.
The first type of content is a vendor or subscription-based
content.
This includes databases, citation managers, mobile applications and
other software.
And platform such as for publishing.
Because we do not directly on discounted, the types of skills we
need here are negotiation, communication, testing and auditing,
and advocacy.
The second type is content for public consumption that we control
or stupid.
This type includes digitized archival content, repositories we
host and have authors submit content into, and structural
content such as tutorials and guides and websites.
Folks need to know the core accessibility skills and how to
apply them to content.
But also additional accessibility formats including PDF, so that they
may review the files and know what to look for.
For those who work more closely with the interface, they need to
know WCAG and how to properly implement and test for it.
Because this does require remediation of old and new content,
and developing policies and workflows, project management
skills are necessary.
The first type is virtual services.
This is a separate category because library employees often
have a more involved job than the first type.
This would include services such as online chat, virtual reference
consultations, and digital interlibrary loans.
For skills, we need content and document accessibility for multiple
formats, and using accessible communication techniques.
And the fourth type is internal content.
Just as our patrons may be disabled, so too can employees.
But this does extend to patrons as well, as it covers workflows,
prostheses and documents.
Often workflows, processes and document directly and indirectly
impact everyone.
It is again about document accessibility, making sure we are
using captioning and inclusive meeting practices, and of acquiring
digital accessibility training.
Wherever title II applies to your internal content according to your
institution's interpretation, ADA Title I one does.
(indiscernible) so either way, it should be considered.
Next we will go over the exceptions in the regulation from a library
perspective.
The exceptions are for archived web content; pre-existing
conventional editorial documents; content posted by a third-party;
individually password-protected or otherwise secured conventional
electronic document; and pre-existing social media posts.
Pre-existing means anything created before the compliance dates
such as April 24, 2026.
I am seeing a raised hand, could anybody help that person?
The fundamental cultivation and undue burden alterations we will
also discuss which apply.
In the next few slides, we will describe these exceptions and
provide library examples that you may qualify as exceptions.
And some which probably do not.
Again, these opinions are our own and it is really up to your library
or institution to work with your ADA coordinator and attorneys to
determine -- this regulation.
And even if you meet these requirements you will still need to
accommodate individual requests and if faced with a complaint or
lawsuit you will have to prove that you meet requirements.
If you do not have a plan to remediate or provide accessible
versions of documents, implementing something before the compliance
deadline is highly recommended.
So we therefore would not recommend not doing anything for
something which may qualify for exceptions.
Make accessibility improvements where you can.
So, before I get into this, you will notice that chat is turned
off.
If you do have questions please add them to the Q&A.
And we will try to address them at the end of the presentation.
Thank you.
So the first exception is the archived web content.
Archived web content includes web content and reproductions of paper
documents or other physical media.
To meet the exception, you must meet all of the following four.
Having been created prior to the compliance date of the original
document.
Retained exclusively for veterans of record keeping.
Have not been updated or altered after the date of archiving.
And clearly be identified as being archived.
What does the DOJ mean by archived and investments, research and
recordkeeping?
The revision uses the word archived web content, which is
different than digitized archival content.
Hopefully that distinction helps.
We received a few questions in advance about this.
I would love to hear conversation about what constitutes an archive
from the legal perspective, and how it differs from a library against
definition of archive.
Was some examples.
I am curious to learn about the ways that different people are
seeing this new law and if we need to do anything to legacy digitized
content.
And if the original content was created before the date of
compliance, is it exempt?
And is the exemption if the process of scanning or digitization
does not alter the content?
Excuse me.
My response to these questions, after attending many sessions, is
that it depends on context.
No one knows how this impacts our digital archives, including the
department of justice.
So, your institution is going to need to decide what it means to
them, and hope that it holds up in a cart.
That said, the federalregulations.gov has a
lengthy example.
Wherever archived content is retained for record-keeping and
(indiscernible) is for specific cases.
They may have both archived and none archived content related to a
city park.
If the library's collection included a comment map of the park
that was created by the city, that map would not be retained
exclusively for record-keeping or reference.
As it is a covered part of the city's program of maintaining and
providing a park.
Furthermore, if the map was newly created after the date of the
public entity was required to comply, and it does not direct
produce paper documents of the contents of a physical media
created before the date the public entity was required to comply, the
matter… Hold on… I need to catch my breath and access the map would
likely not meet the first part of the definition of archived web
content.
In addition, the library may decide to curate and host an exhibition on
its website about the history of the park.
Which he refers to and underlies this historic web content,
pertaining to the park that otherwise meets the definition of
archived web content.
All content used to deliver the online exhibition likely would not
be used exclusively for reference, research or record-keeping, as the
library is using the materials to create and provide a new
educational program for the members of the public.
The Department believes the exception, including the definition
of archived web content, provides a workable framework for determining
wherever all types of public entities probably designate work
content as archived.
To me as of things and use such as courses or exhibits, still under an
exception because it is packaged into something new.
So prioritize the content you know isn't an exception, and work from
there.
They also use a research library in the examples, so maybe the research
language extends to research institutions.
Further, remember the content must be in a separate place,
specifically designated as archived.
And that archived designated space, if a digitized items original date
is before April 2026 or seven, and is not in use or otherwise modified,
it could fall in this exception.
So if it is the year 2028, and you are scanning in documents from 2010,
they may fall in this exception because the original date is 2010.
You will want a remediation plan as previously mentioned though.
Our recommendation is to contact your ADA Coordinator or General
Counsel to get their interpretation of whether what your library
considers to be archival content is included in this exception.
It is your institution that is taking on the risk of that
interpretation.
As these are new rules and exceptions, it will take time to
define them and see how things play out.
With that, I will hand it over to Heidi now to discuss the next
exception.
HEIDI
HEIDI SCHROEDER: Thanks Amy.
The next exception is pre-existing conventional electronic documents,
which are defined as web content or content in mobile apps that is in
the following electronic file formats:
Portable document format, 20-F, wordprocessor files, presentation
files and spreadsheets files.
To meet this exception must have been created prior to the complaint
states, and not be currently used to apply to, gain access to, or
participate in the entities programs, services or activities.
As with the archived web content exception, even if something
qualifies for this exception, your institution is to get it to
accommodate individual request for accessible versions of pre-existing
conventional electronic documents.
Here are a few library examples of pre-existing commercial electronic
documents in the context of this exception.
Scanned PDF from a library's digital repository linked the
course page in a Learning Management System would not
qualify.
The DOJ has made it very clear that for higher education,
materials required for courses or LMS's have to be accessible.
A PDF about current secular policies that was created in 2023
would also not qualify.
And you certainly can policies like this are probably needed to
gain access to entities programs, services or activities.
What about items in a digital repository or other types of legacy
content where use is less were unknown.
This is not as clear and depends on your institution's
interpretation and exception policies.
His legacy digitized counterpart of the library program services and
activities?
Whether your institution thinks the qualifies were not for this
exception, Libraries should probably do more and document their
efforts in this area.
The thought of making all pre-existing conventional documents
accessible in your library is understandably very overwhelming.
We think it is very important to prioritize efforts and about risk
hopefully with input from others in your library or in campus.
We are obligated to provide accessible pre-existing
conventional documents from our libraries upon request, now and
after the compliance date.
A Labra does not have procedures away plan for how to handle this
request, that should definitely be a priority.
Here at MSU levers, we plan to ask via our Title II task force for
funds to outsource remediation some collections.
We don't know if we will receive any funding but we plan to document
our request.
If we have staff, special student employs trained on document
accessibility, we will also try to do productive mediation and how
system collections.
Doing something in chipping away at accessible content is better
than doing nothing.
We did want to note celebrities have wondered whether the
fundamental operation and undue burden exception discussed on a few
slides may apply to an entire digital repository or large
collections of legacy content.
The third exception is for third-party content.
To meet this exception, third-party content must be posted
by 1/3 party and not be posted due to congressional licensing rather
arrangements with an agency.
Entity.
If anything qualify spit exception like the others, individual
commissions that request must be met.
Here are a few third-party content example from the context of this
exception.
Of patrons and accessible comment or post made to a library's social
media or website would meet this exception.
Library E-resources we purchased them license would not.
I chat reference service provided by 1/3 party vendor would also not.
There are a couple advanced questions from registrants related
to this exception.
One magician asked if there is guidance on what to do if 1/3 party
vendor is not compliant?
Is this where the exception comes in?
How does one apply for an exception, and if not an exception
to the library have to cancel access to that vendor.
We have some guidance, I will so describe some sinks by TASH my
institution is to become but it will depend what your situation
decides to do about third-party content.
Some of our PTA lepers including MSU have on-demand services in
place for library users with disabilities can request because of
the versions of the resource content.
Any of our labors have also been asking vendors about WCAG
compliance and to add accessibility license to our contracts.
After lover is not doing these two things,
we recommend you start here.
Here at MSU, given Title II in a recently updated digital access to
policy, we are going to do more documenting and follow-up if there
is pushback to accept language.
He also plan to notify vendors about our Title II obligations, and
worn noncompliant offenders, auto renewal or new purchase in future
years may not be possible without them signing our accessibility
language addendum, or showing the plan to make progress on
accessibility.
We also plan to cement more EEAAPs, or equally effective alternative
access plans.
We are document to accessibility and RLS licensing module, and are
storing VPATs there.
We are not currently determined in contracts with in excess of vendors
command don't think MSU expects this of us, as there's no
accessible alternative and it's essential.
We were getting to pressure vendors to comply, and approve – Mike
improves directors ability.
If more accessible alternative serve available from another vendor,
redeeming eResources nonessential, we may cancel resources or stop
requiring additional resources from an excess able vendors.
The effort and interpretation that canceling some accessible
third-party eResources not available from another vendor and
are considered essential to research and teaching would be
fundamentally altering the educational offerings and resources
higher and insufficiency to provide.
Frank will talk more about the fundamental operation exception and
a couple slides, but maybe worth asking her general counsel or 80
Corteva about their interposition.
Panic has questions about exceptions, institutions need to
decide if or how to exempt and access to third-party content 80
essential, perhaps under the fundamental alteration exception as
we really don't think eResources qualify for this exception.
We also received the question, should we require VPATs?
We asked about asking -- storing them if lovers aren't doing it
already, but VPATs are not the be all and all.
The quality and accuracy of VPATs can vary.
Here at MSU, we've been collecting and story VPAT since 26(e) in, but
don't verify or always reserves him upon receipt.
We store the case users have specific issue, or need to refer to
certain excess able aspect of avengers platform.
We look more carefully at VPATs for new E-resources, seriously those
will be have accessibility questions or concerns.
When companies don't have a VPAT, that's a red flag for us.
It is also a red flag when VPATs really outdated or have no dates,
don't have information about who completed the document, when the
mark supports for everything or most fields, and if they don't have
any comments in the remarks and explanation section.
Is also an exception for individual password-protected electronic
documents which are defined as conventional electronic documents
that are about specific into visual, property or the recount where
access is restricted presumably to that individual.
If access is requested, the entity needs to provide an excessive
diversion under its equally effective communication
application's, so again and wearily heading this home.
If your library institution does not have a service workflow or plan
to remediate or provide excessive aversions of documents,
implementing something before the compliance deadline is hardly
recommended.
-- Is highly recommended.
When I example is Minute Maid by an individual for the unusual
reference.
Those would qualify for this exception and would have to be
excess become a part minutes from friends of the library meeting
probably would not qualify.
A less clear example comes from my questions omitted in advance of
today's webinar about in her library loan.
And asked: if I allow documents might be exempt from this exception
because they are PDF, orc specific person into Mexico beyond a
password.
Our group is really not sure, I alephs are certainly
password-protected and for an individual, but only about the
specific individual, the property or the recount?
It's our opinion your library and institution are going to have to
interpret this until there is more information from a complaint or
lawsuit.
Even if your institution decides ILL documents qualify for this
exception, we feel it would be wise to still address and improve ILL
accessibility.
Library ILL pages and forms a recent article, at least most of
the time.
So so should be accessible.
Your library should be prepared to make ILL more accessible upon
request and have a workflow, or for outsourcing these types of
requests.
ILL cover sheets and webpages should have instructions on how
users with disabilities can request a more accessible ILL document.
Some libraries have started adding automated optical care or OCR,
further height to commit conversion program's like the (Indiscernible)
server.
These will buy them out -- no means be perfect, but for many born
digital ILL documents, auto-OCR can be a great start.
I will now turn things over to Frank to talk but the last few
exceptions.
FRANK
FRANK SWEIS: Thank you Heidi.
I would like to talk about the existing social media exception.
To meet the exception must've been published prior to the complaint
date.
This one is a bit more straightforward, and the key part
in the exception is pre-existing, as it must have been published
prior to ours April 2026, Waple 2027 complaint states.
However, like we mentioned with other exceptions, if access to
pre-existing social media was requested, the entity would be to
provide an accessible version under its equally effective communication
supplications.
Lastly, we want to discuss the concept of fundamental alteration
in undue burden related to compliance.
So workplace would result in the fundament alteration in the nature
of the service, program activity, or in undue financial and
administrative burdens.
Compliance with regard to the extent that it does not resolve in
a fundamental alteration or undue financial and administrative
burdens.
So notes about this in the process for determining fundament of
alteration and undue burden.
The public entity has the burden of proving the complaints would
result in such alterations or burdens, and the decision
complaints would result in such alteration or Britain must be made
by the head of the public entity, or there designee after considering
all resources available for the funding and operation of the
service, program activity.
This must be a company by a written statement of the reasons
for reaching that conclusion.
Lastly, it is important to note the entity shall take any other action
that would not result in such a alteration or such burdens, but
would nevertheless ensure individuals with disabilities
receive the benefits or services provided to the public entity to
the maximum extent possible.
We will go over that point in a moment, it's always important to
remember there was a gradient when it comes to accessibility between
doing nothing, full compliance, and determining if it ends up being a
fundamental alteration or undue burden.
As we discussed before, it is always important to make things as
accessible as it can, even prior to client states.
So how do front of alterations in the departments apply?
Depends on a number of factors.
He includes a small operational budget were maybe undue burden to
make simple on Carnival documents fully accessible in a short period
of time, in response to request by an individual.
This can also change over time as budgets can change as
(Indiscernible) she does to technology to reduce the cost of
access ability.
For example in reducing ILL turnaround times from 2 to 3 days
to 10 to 14 days, leverage intermediate ILL documents, you
find about alteration to the service?
Depends on a number of factors including budget, and skill of
work.
What is important is to document you can and cannot do so the
institution can make informed decisions as part of the process we
outlined a moment ago.
It's also important to remember there are many gradients of excess
ability between fully compliant and noncompliance, and you should aim
to do what you can and prioritize.
In a little bit Nancy will go over examples of things you can do to
get closer to accessibility in this example.
What about changing colors of a scanned PDF to pass like a 2.1 AA
color contrast?
Is that a fundamental alteration to the reproduction of the original
print item?
This is likely a fundamental alteration as you would be changing
the original design and intent of the document, but what is important
here is that even if it's a fundamental operation Schmick
alteration you would still need to take action such as improving color
contrast to immediate access for any vigils with disabilities once
it is requested.
Lastly what unsubscribing to an accessible Journal be needed by --
needed by physics researchers at your institution if an alteration
of what universes provide staff as part of their programs, services or
activities?
This would require documents of the issues and working with others
so University can make an informed decision.
If it's material required for one to continue the research, then it
could be an undue burden.
However, there is still a need to talk to the vendor to highlight any
issues and encourage them to take any action to improve
accessibility.
And again, even if undue burden is applied, it still expected that the
entity take action so that individuals with disabilities
receive equal benefits and service to the maximum extent possible.
Now I would like to hit it over to Nancy for the Lawyerbrarian take.
NANCY
SIMS: Thank you.
And I will just briefly give you a little bit on my back and that
somebody acted the Q&A already.
I am the working lawyer on this group of people presenting but my
specialty is primarily copyright law.
So I am not particularly deeply versed in disability law.
I have done some work in the area.
So, the first thing that I am here to talk about is copyright.
Because that is something that people do have questions about in
terms of the mediating content.
And I noted people have questions about what different types of laws
may apply or be benefit, in the United States I do not think you
need to take a very deep anymore.
They used to be in more complicated laws but copyright
should not be a big barrier for us to convert content for people
because fair use covers accessibility copied.
It is only in the US.
If there are people in this call from other countries this will not
be as clear for you.
There was a case about 10 years ago that is the form… It is one of the
cases about Google digitizing books but this is the library versions of
those digitized books.
And a judge said I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would
not encompass these kinds of uses.
And he very clearly tied not to just such ability of the materials,
but also says that imperfection breaks the ideals espoused by the
ATA as being part of why it is fair use.
So fair use probably covers most copying we might need to do to make
accessible versions.
If we are dealing with content that is not coming from us, from
our vendors, they are supposed to be providing accessible copies in
the first place.
In the case that they are not, which has already been addressed a
little bit, we need to overlie on contracts, more than any kind of
copyright law.
In order to achieve the legal requirements.
We can tell our vendors we will not for new your content.
Even if they are really not performing, we could consider
saying we cannot pay you until you do what you said you would do.
But contracts are where we will be trying to force our third-party
providers to make things accessible.
Some of our contracts may prohibit us from copying.
This is not copyright law getting in the way, this would be one of
our contracts getting in the way.
Some of our contracts and we should not make copies.
You may need to renegotiate your contract or figure out what
middleground you need to find between following the contract and
following accessible law.
A lot of what we have talked about today comes down to we do not have
super clear answers about exactly what might apply.
So this is my legal realistic take on all of this.
Some elements of these regulations are probably going to remain
unclear for a while.
That is how regulations work.
That is how the original ADEA worked.
It is how the original web content accessibility laws work.
They provide regulations and then we work to try to figure them out.
Before I move onto the last point here I am going to point out
another complicating factor here is that there are some pending
challenges to all of federal regulatory law.
And by that I mean the Supreme Court last term overload a decision
that was called the chef one case, and no longer… So that was the
basis of most federal regulatory law.
And there are over the lot and lots of lawsuits challenging (all
federal regulations.
Some of them from states.
Your state may be a state where people are choosing to to consider
federal regulatory law invited law.
Hopefully not!
But that may be a factor you have to consider when consulting with
your constitutional counsel.
All that said, this is all very up in the air but what this really
means is that there is space for trying different things.
So we have the ILL document accessibility example that we have
been talking about throughout the presentation, and if we are
providing automated OCR, with heavily ILL document, that is not
meeting accessibility guidelines.
That is not good enough to be accessible.
But it is better than doing nothing.
And anything you can do to move yourself towards processes that
will get you closer to accessibility for everybody is
probably worth doing.
Those fundamental alteration and undue burden exceptions are worth
considering, but is there something you can do as an intermediate step?
My first step here is that to some degree you are the people with the
best expertise to answer these questions.
If you are working with your institutional counsel to try to
figure out what these rules require, they are going to need to know
from you what are the fundamental details of your service?
What would be a fundamental alteration?
What could you do that might be different?
And these are things that we can all work together to talk to one
another to try to work out in the next few years.
So thank you.
I think we have Binky coming up next.
BINKY
LUSH: ABORH, thank you so much Nancy.
And at this point we fought it might be helpful to share some
resources with all of you as well as some real examples of an in
progress accessibility action plan.
So, these new regulations are daunting.
And when the new title to regulations came out here at Penn
State University Libraries we started putting together a game
plan of how remote approach the work, trying to break it down into
more manageable pieces.
We started with the following steps.
They sing awareness of foster libraries, developing a plan and
using that to determine the resources we would need.
We are working on developing testing plans and protocols and
reviewing advising a life of its accessibility policy and statement.
We are also making sure that we have a reliable vehicle for users
to request accessibility help and feedback, and the workflows in
place to back it up.
And we also want to make sure that we collaborate with the rest of the
University and take advantage of university partnerships and
resources.
So first and foremost, we needed to raise awareness about the new
regulation.
Our first conversations outside of the small accessibility group with
the library's administration.
We are lucky in that our administration has always
privatized accessibility to taking these new roles seriously was
already a given.
Conversations and presentations included the impact on the library,
the possible vests involved in the potential resources needed to meet
the April 2026 guideline.
The next step was communicated across our libraries.
And the new of all impacts every area and all of the work that we
all do.
So we will be presenting at an upcoming meeting so far from and
beating with departments, subject encompass libraries individually,
as well as groups and communities of practice to explain what the new
ruling means for them and the work that they do and how we will be
working together to address digital content in their vamp.
Ongoing communication is also critical to keep accessibility in
the forefront of people's minds.
It needs to become a natural part of the work that people do.
We'll continue to make libraries, faculty and staff aware of the
available training, resources and tools available to them.
So, we have been working on an actual written plan or strategy to
achieve accessibility.
We are targeting the following questions.
What should the task force our team look like?
Who should be involved and where are the gaps in resources or
expertise?
What are the digital platforms and content we need to address?
What is our approach for each of those?
What we are trying to do is break down all of these areas and then
specify the steps and accessibility process for each one.
So similar to the content buckets a be discussed, we have broken our
platforms and content into the following areas.
Locally developed applications and the content dogs into them; vended
applications and the content that goes into them; websites, platforms
and content; maybe regards, open publishing resources, electronic
music, and social media.
So for an example, we will look at our locally developed applications,
where third-party content is deposited.
An example of these applications include our institutional
repository, and our electronic thesis and dissertation
application.
And examples of the third-party content that go into these
applications include faculty research, and thesis and
dissertations.
This includes drafting the template, and including -- updating the UI.
We are working on changing the contents deposit workflow to test
and remediate the third-party content as part of the deposit
process.
And then for all of these areas, we are creating a baseline and
determining how progress will be measured and documented.
So in assessing the accessibility work to be done across the library,
we are starting with the team that includes a project manager, to
direct the accessibility effort in the library; strategist and liaison
with the University accessibility leadership to develop the libraries
accessibility plan and provide consultation and guidance; we have
an open publishing accessibility coordination team; out there guides
specialist; and assistive technology specialist; a technology
trainer; our (indiscernible) team is all on board; third-party
content coordinators for the deposited third-party content that
we discussed earlier; a testing coordinator to oversee our
automated testing and monitor report, and also to schedule and
coordinate manual testing; and then of course and even resources
accessibility coordinator to work of our acquisitions team.
So we found it to be really important in all of this to have
consisting tested plans and protocols in place.
The library uses site input for automated testing, and most of our
sites and applications.
We also used the site improved browser extension from page by page
testing.
And by using the same tools it has really helped with consistency of
supporting advice a great baseline for which we can compare our
progress.
We are also conducting ongoing extensive scans of our digital
platforms and content with the help of an assistive technology
specialist who is from the central IT accessibility office.
And uses green meaning software.
She hosts regular office hours in the library for all of our
developers and content specialist.
So we have always had an accessibility policy, in place at
the library.
But now is a great time for us to review it, specify the new
requirements, and outline the actions that the libraries will
need to take to comply with this world and stay compliant in the
future.
And we also currently have ways for users to request an alternate
version of the libraries resource, or to report an accessibility
issue.
And that is on all of our libraries digital properties.
We need to review and update these as well just to make sure.
And equally as important as making sure that somebody can reach out to
us to request content of the report and accessibility issue is making
sure that the prophecies are in place to satisfy that request or
complete.
But it goes to the correct people in an appropriate and timely action
will be taken.
And then lastly, university partnerships and other
collaborations.
We are looking for places in the library, Acosta University, and
with our vendors where we might partner and collaborate for
accessibility.
We have a wonderful university wide training of resources,
connected IT accessibility office and a really tightknit
accessibility community in the University.
All offering help, advice and solutions to the challenges that we
are all facing.
And it is always great to know that we are not alone in these
efforts and that we do have collaborators across the
University.
Now I will pass it on to Frankie will provide some excellent
resources entitled for remediation work.
FRANK
SWEIS: Thanks Binky, I also want to point out one of the additional
steps we've taken his review read digital access to build a policy.
It's a great first step for an institution to begin the steps.
I look at your questions and just moment, but before we do the last
reasons want to share is put together some guides and tools to
get people started to learn how to make digital materials more
accessible, the tools that can help.
Karmically included a couple of general guides and reviews for
accessibility from the W3C as well as from the University of
Minnesota.
These are tips and guidelines that apply to many materials or purpose
of for metal file type.
This can help folks at your university learn the basics of
visual accessibility.
We also include specific guides for popular formats in Microsoft
Word, he was remediating PDFs with Adobe Acrobat.
If you wanted to ask for some tools to help with remediation, we
included a few examples.
These are not the only options available, but there's only use at
Northwestern.
First we use is ABBYY FineReader and server, which can help with
(Indiscernible) and scale.
Sing about the ILL exhibits we talked about.
This is a great tool that cannot be get to more accessible – my
Marks visible as we work through this compliance.
We also have aqueducts which we use at Northwestern, and my opinion is
a bit more easier to use for PDF or mediation compared to Adobe Acrobat
built-in tools.
And also have Pope Tech which helps automate accessibility check
of websites which is so much as a site Binky mentioned, helps us
identify document issues in our campus course -- course modules.
Also we have census access which is a document conversion tool that
allows you to convert materials to different formats.
For example, text to audio or digital braille, or even large
print.
Next we are going to stop the recording to get into our Q&A.
But before we head into questions, we talked a little bit about the
action plans or steps were taking her at her institutions.
I would like for attendees to also have the opportunity to share what
you and your institutions have done so far to prepare.
So in addition to the examples that we have all shared here, we
hope we can learn from your institutions and libraries.
With that I want to include, I will hopefully send this out to
everyone.
We put together a Google Form to put anything you would like to
share about your institutions plans.
Our goal is to put these responses together and share it up with the
rest of the webinar materials in the coming weeks.
And just as a note, we are collecting email addresses on this
farm, and we will anonymize anything that's shared.
But please be mindful and disclosing any identifiable
information such as the name of your institution in your response.
On that farm as well, we have some – an opportunity to provide
feedback about the webinar itself.
So please share any feedback to presenters, and for a Library
Accessibility Group to see how we did for that.
I think that will take us over to our questions and discussion
portion.
I believe at this point maybe we can stop sharing and see if we can
get folks on screen that are presenting.
Sorry think, just to start real quick, I know we are getting
cautions about materials and copies of this.
The slide deck just got shared, and we will follow up with
registrants once the recording is available, as well as the slides
and any other materials we will provide for you all.
We are trying to provide as much as we can with everyone who has
registered for the webinar.
AMY
DRAYER: This is Amy, I'm taking a look at one of the open questions
that we still have.
The first one is I'm getting confused about what is meant by the
compliance state.
-- Date.
I said April 2026 or 2027 depending on your population.
Does that mean anything created or published before April 2026 is
exempt?
So...
Maybe (Laughs).
If you are thinking, let's use the archived web content scenario.
You are looking at your archive, your online archive.
And you are saying all these newspapers from the 1980s.
And you don't know if they are in a course.
So you know they are not being used in a course.
There's no indication people are accessing these.
Don't have an exhibit on the content in the newsletters, and the
newspapers.
Yes, they are exempt.
Unless your institution interpret differently!
(Laughs)
Sorry.
This is where it gets really squishy.
But the exception dates, the compliance dates starts April 24,
2026.
Waple 26 2027.
-- Or April 26, 2027.
Anything before complaint states can fall within the exception.
So anything after those dates most likely will need to be made
accessible, unless the original document is from before that date.
That was clear as mud I'm sure.
FRANK
SWEIS: Nancy I see your comment.
Go for it.
NANCY
NANCY SIMS: OK, there are two questions that to me, this is in the Q&A.
To me look similar.
I'm going to answer them with the Lawyerbrarian take.
Kates Tilly -- Kate (Unknown Name) asks how would a library repository
manager know the content in our system is being used in a course,
and to what extent are we response before making that content
accessible?
We typically don't know until we look at traffic after the fact.
And right before that, Chad Nelson has also asked if a course from an
organization outside of my institution links to a PDF in my
repository.
Does that implicate my institution, or the linking institution, or
both?
These questions to me go to this idea of who was responsible for
keeping track of things?
And for that I go back to a basic legal concept.
Which is knowledge.
If you know, you know.
And if you don't know, you don't know.
And you are not typically responsible for things you don't
know.
There are some edge cases.
Because if you know that some department in your school is using
one of your older online digital collections really heavily.
Yes, you may not know they are using one specific thing.
But that is the sort of thing where...
There's actually a phrase lawyers use called "Constructive
knowledge." Where they decide they will treat you as though you knew,
given that we can't approve you knew.
-- Can't prove unit.
It there was probably something you should have known it was something
going on but were ignoring it on purpose, those with situations
where maybe you might be response will for something you did not
actually, really, fully, consciously know.
If you know a whole department is pointing all their instructors at
one online collection, you might want to have a meeting to plan how
to target lateral collection so you can make it more accessible so
everyone can be in compliance.
Because the teachers at your institution will be responsible for
some degree of compliance.
So you can work together on that.
People outside of your institution, you probably can't really do much
about.
I hope that answers what people were looking for there.
HEIDI
SCHROEDER: There is a question from Michelle Fisher, which are
considered licensed database content created before the combined
status meeting the archive exception?
I think I would probably not, but it is really important for you to
get the interpretation of your institution.
Remember for archived web content and must meet those for specific
criteria.
The last clearly be identified as being archived, which most of our
lottery databases, if it contains older stuff, are not.
So that's my answer to that one.
FRANK
SWEIS: Comment in the Q&A is that common look is also being used for
PDF as well.
That's another tool folks come look at for PDF remediation.
Thank you for that suggestion.
AMY
DRAYER: This is Amy, sorry we are all reading the questions to figure
out which ones make it each dish Mike which ones we can each
individual answer.
Apologies for the delay.
I think this is a follow-up.
Does that mean after the compliance date we cannot direct
classes to digitize archival contents that does not meet WCAG
2.1.
That's one approach.
I'm not sure if it's the best approach, but if it's going to be
used, after April 2026 or 2010 27, -- 2027, estimate the WCAG 2.1
Level AA requirements.
You could just say don't use our archives, but I think that defeats
the purpose of what a library is.
Everyone is going to have to figure out how to approach this.
Inside your institution, you have to make some plans.
But if it is being pointed at for a class, that's the requirement.
After April 2026 or 2027.
NANCY
SIMS: I'm also looking at John Dunn's question about whether
remediation for some of our specialized content.
What is a need for specialized knowledge in order to remediate
might have some interaction with the new regulations.
I think it would, I think it would go two things probably very quickly,
go to things like undue burden.
Could potentially go to things like fundamental alteration.
That something to be determined at the institutional level.
So I can't give you a concrete example of how you would consider
this, other than yes this would be something where that would
definitely play in to some degree.
AMY
AMY DRAYER: This is Amy.
I see such a question, does this apply to exhibits?
I am wondering if this is again a follow-up.
First it needs to be a digital exhibit because we are talking
about digital spaces, right?
It has to be something after April 2026 or 2027.
If you have an exhibit planned for May 2026, and the audience you
service greater than 50,000 people, yes, it needs to meet WCAG 2.1
Level AA, because it's being used and repurposed into a new
educational opportunity.
FRANK
SWEIS: I want to note if we don't get to everyone's question which I
don't think we'll be able to do at this time, we will try to look at
the questions and send them out as written responses with the rest of
the material.
We do overshoot the question is coming in even if we don't get to
them during the webinar.
AMY
AMY DRAYER: There's another one for Michelle.
It seems like the reference/research purposes
criteria in the archived content exception contradicts the purpose
of the agency and service the spirit of the rule for libraries
specifically.
Does usage trump archival nature in these cases?
Honestly, this is something I also was really...
This completely contradicts what a library is.
In a research institution.
And I'm like, does that mean all of our digitized archival content
does not need to?
Unless it's being exclusively
used?
I think it's a mixed bag.
I hate seeing...
It depends right?
Again, I think the best approach is to prioritize.
Prioritized that which we know is going to be not accepted.
We know anything and of course, we know anything being repackaged or
used.
Then from there, maybe start working on some of the stuff that
is less obvious.
Because remember, we do need to do something.
We need to have a remediation process.
But we won't know until someone gets sued (Laughs).
Just how much of the archival content is going to get included.
I would advocate personally to have it all done.
We all know that's really not feasible.
Maybe think about that as an end goal and figure out how to get
there.
But prioritize that which we know.
FRANK
SWEIS: We are at time, and we will need to wrap up for this.
Again we will make our materials available in the coming weeks, but
the recording, slides, as well as any other information we could
share from the webinar.
Thank you everyone for attending, feel free to reach out to any of us
if you have any questions or want to connect.
Thank you and have a great afternoon.
Live captioning by AI-Media