Charleston Conference: Collection development, e-resources, and meeting the needs of people with disabilities

Axel Schmetzke
Standards: WCAG2 and Section 508 (anticipating Section 508 refresh soon–perhaps March–to add more functionality information)

Recommendations:
– include in selection/cd policy
– ask vendors

– he reviewed information from professional organizations and literature are main influencers regarding accessibility in collections
– ARL has some model license language, including option for licensee to modify content to become accessible

What actually is happening
– all except 1 campus do not have accessibility in the CD policy
– accessible claims are not corroborated
– literature (books only) 59% did not address accessibility at all
– literature that did address it did not include sufficient information, details, or consistency

Meeting the needs of people with disabilities
– CSU system project, started in 2007 – http://www.calstate.edu/Accessibility/EIT_Procurement/
– accessible procurement process steps: review product, put accessibility language in the contract language
– librarians need to be asking vendors for accessible products
– request accessibility roadmap
– they are reviewing all vendors in core collection when they come up for renewal

Meeting the needs of people with disabilities: a publisher’s perspective by Michele Bruno (Cengage)
– requests for textbook source files have increased dramatically
– accessibility changes by operating system, browsers, assistive technology, and now varying mobile platforms
– NVDA does not do a good job currently with reading complex math
– accessibility now integrated upstream during product development and upstream

Audience questions:
– for handwritten manuscripts, lots of man-hours needed so full transcription is not going to happen quickly, so prioritizing tasks is important
– some major vendors don’t have VPATs (priceless conference only content: one library asked for one and the library got a blank one back)
– how often should VPATs be updated? Perhaps look at versioning
– VPAT registry: would be nice, but vendors could technically give us each different VPATs
– performance obligation in contracts tend not to include accessibility or meeting the needs of people with disabilities

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s