Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Accessibility Compliance and Remediation Methodology (ACRM)
Contents
DOCUMENT OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................4
I. PRIORITIZATION...............................................................................................................................5
Identify Systems.................................................................................................................................5
Score Systems...................................................................................................................................6
Build Inventory....................................................................................................................................7
Rank & Prioritize.................................................................................................................................8
II. PLANNING...................................................................................................................................... 11
Define Scope....................................................................................................................................11
Understand Standards & Law..........................................................................................................12
Identify Resources............................................................................................................................13
Participants & Skill Sets................................................................................................................13
Sample Set for Assessment..........................................................................................................13
Additional Funding or Resources..................................................................................................13
Follow Best Practices.......................................................................................................................14
Level of Effort................................................................................................................................14
Third party accessibility assessment services...............................................................................14
Logging Defects & Deficiencies....................................................................................................14
Communication Plan.....................................................................................................................15
III. ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................................................16
Methods & Procedures.....................................................................................................................16
Automated Accessibility Scans.....................................................................................................16
Manual Assessment......................................................................................................................16
Assessment Procedures...............................................................................................................17
Assessment Setup and Support.......................................................................................................18
Facilities and Equipment...............................................................................................................18
Consent Form............................................................................................................................... 18
Introduction to a Testing Session..................................................................................................18
Questionnaire on Computer Use, System and Internet Experience..............................................18
Debriefing Questions.....................................................................................................................18
Metrics & Reporting..........................................................................................................................19
Assessment Results......................................................................................................................19
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 2
IV. REMEDIATION.............................................................................................................................. 20
Evaluating Incidents or Defects........................................................................................................20
Prioritization......................................................................................................................................20
Mitigation..........................................................................................................................................21
V. Resources.......................................................................................................................................22
Access IT California: Online Resources...........................................................................................22
Laws and Policies.............................................................................................................................22
Accessibility Standards.................................................................................................................... 22
Useful Links......................................................................................................................................22
Useful References............................................................................................................................23
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 3
DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
The mission of the Access Information Technology (IT) California project is to provide effective education materials that will allow state departments to easily adopt key accessibility concepts and maximize opportunities for everyone by providing the best possible service and experience to the people of California.
Making a department’s inventory of existing systems usable and accessible can be challenging. To simplify the assessment and remediation process for California State departments, the Access IT California project team created the Accessibility Compliance and Remediation Methodology (ACRM). This document details a strategy and plan of action to address accessibility in existing systems using a four-phased approach:
ACRM aims to provide a repeatable process that will help departments: Prioritize
o Review their inventory of systemso Prioritize systems for usability and accessibility assessments
Plano Plan and perform usability and accessibility assessments
Assesso Outline a remediation plan for systems
Remediateo Incorporate accessibility into ongoing IT operations and maintenanceo Comply with State of California accessibility statutes and policies (State Administrative
Manual (SAM) 4833; California Government Code Section 7405)
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 4
I. PRIORITIZATION
Addressing accessibility for a system inventory can be intimidating. With limited resources and a large inventory, it can be hard to determine which system(s) to evaluate first. To help departments identify which systems should be evaluated first, the Access IT team developed Accessibility Exposure & Impact Score (AEIS).
AEIS is a technology-agnostic evaluation that focuses on the purpose of a system, the services that it provides to citizens, and impact to work performed by State staff. AEIS also takes modernization efforts and State/Federal mandates into consideration. By focusing on these factors, AEIS highlights systems that have the largest impact to the population.
To provide departments with a quick and easy way to prioritize their existing systems for accessibility and usability testing, the Access IT team created the AEIS scoresheet. Using the scoresheet, department staff will answer a short set of “Yes/No” questions. After answering all the questions a score (out of 100) signifying the impact significance of the system will be provided. A higher score means that the system has a greater risk for accessibility issues. A sorted listing of the scores will identify which systems should be evaluated first.
In addition to providing departments with an easy form to evaluate a systems inventory, the AEIS scoresheet also provides additional tools that can be used to compare systems and justify an assessment effort. In addition to the score, after answering all questions, a “justification” form is also generated. A completed form can be used to provide stakeholders and executive staff with a quick explanation about the system, its services, and an explanation for why it should be prioritized for an assessment.
AEIS was developed using Microsoft Excel. There are also two versions available. The manual version is a simple, formula-based spreadsheet which will provide departments with the Scorecard and Justification form. The automated version that utilizes macros to allow users to score multiple applications in the same file and performs additional text and graphic based analysis on the calculated data.
To simplify the prioritization process, departments are recommended to use the automated version of AEIS as it contains a System Inventory and a graph-based Analysis worksheet. To gain access to the all the functionality that AEIS offers, users will need to enable macros. If that option is not available, then users will need to use the manual version of AEIS. The manual version does not require macros, but it only provides users with the Scorecard, Text Analysis, and Justification sheets.
Identify Systems
The first step in evaluating the department’s inventory is to identify which systems will be scored using AEIS. Departments should start by compiling a list of systems that are actively used. For each of these systems, the team that will be scoring the systems should know basic information about the system, including: service(s) the system provides, what it is used for, who the users are, whether it has been tested for accessibility in the past, and if there is a plan for the system to be retired.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 5
Score Systems
Included in the Inventory is where information on each of the scored systems is captured. In addition to tracking the categorical scoring breakdown for each of the systems evaluated, users can also adjust the output for the “Analysis” and “Text Analysis” tabs by changing the number in the green cell (F3) then clicking the “Refresh Data” button.
Entries in the inventory may also be manually added or removed. However, once changes are made, the “Refresh Data” button needs to be clicked to reset the form.
The Scorecard is an interface where users will answer ten questions about the system being evaluated. After all questions are answered, the system will be assessed a score out of 100 points.
If using the Automated version of AEIS, additional buttons will be available that will allow users to clear/reset the form (“Clear Form”) or save the questionnaire results and add them to the internal system inventory (“Add to Inventory”).
Scorecard is included in both the automated and manual versions of AEIS.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 6
Build InventoryThe Inventory is where information on each of the scored systems is captured. In addition to tracking the categorical scoring breakdown for each of the systems evaluated, users can also adjust the output for the “Analysis” and “Text Analysis” tabs by changing the number in the green cell (F3) then clicking the “Refresh Data” button.
Entries in the inventory may also be manually added or removed. However, once changes are made, the “Refresh Data” button needs to be clicked to reset the form.
Inventory is only included in the automated versions of AEIS.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 7
Rank & Prioritize
The inventory Analysis worksheet provides a bar chart and table listing the highest scored systems and their categorical scoring breakdown. Systems are sorted by their overall AEIS score in descending order. The number of systems displayed is based on the count defined on the Inventory tab. For information on how to adjust the output, refer to the Build Inventory section of the ACRM.
Analysis is only included in the automated versions of AEIS.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 8
Like the output displayed in the Analysis worksheet, the Text Analysis sheet displays a written description of the AEIS scoring breakdown (including total and categorical scores) but only uses text. This functionality is included in both the automated and manual versions of AEIS, but differs slightly depending on the version being used.
Text Analysis is included in both the automated and manual versions of AEIS.
In the automated version, AEIS will output information about all highest scored systems. The number displayed is defined on the Inventory worksheet. For information on how to adjust the output, refer to the Build Inventory section of the ACRM. The manual version of AEIS will only include information on the singular system that is scored.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 9
The Justification form was created so that staff evaluating their systems can create a justification for executive management about why an accessibility assessment should be performed on the system. This will allow management and executives to review a one page document that summarizes the services that the system provides, why an assessment should be prioritized, and what the impact of the system not being accessible would be.
By default, the Justification form will include the system name and AEIS scoring breakdown. The form also adds blank fields where information can be added to explain information not captured in AEIS that will be useful in determining whether an accessibility assessment of the system should be performed.
Justification is included in both the automated and manual versions of AEIS.
The form is generated for each system evaluated. In the automated version, a separate worksheet will be created for each system scored. In the manual version, there is a dedicated tab.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 10
II. PLANNING
It’s important to effectively plan prior to starting an accessibility assessment. The assessment planning documents will help determine tasks and work needed, how to approach and implement the work practically, what standards you will use, the number or resources required and how to communicate the results.
Determine the overall purpose before structuring the assessment. The purpose influences every other aspect of the assessment. For example, the purpose may be to address accessibility concerns with existing systems proactively or it could be in response to and prepare for an upcoming audit.
Follow these steps to effectively plan for the accessibility assessment: Define Scope – Indicate what will be included and excluded in the assessment. Choose Standard – Identify the accessibility standards to use for the assessment. Identify Resources – Determine the resources needed for assessment.
o Participants & Skill Sets – Define the project team, identify skill sets and roles.o Sample – Determine the sample size and how to obtain the sample.
Follow Best Practiceso Determine Level of effort – Assess the level of effort for the assessment.o Define Error Logging – Define information needed to effectively document defects &
deficiencies identified during assessment.o Communication Plan – Document communication strategy to effectively communicate
the results of assessment.o Request for Additional Resources– Determine whether additional funds and/or
resources are needed for the assessment effort.
Define Scope
Document what to include and/or exclude from the assessment. To better focus the assessment, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the business process that the system supports. Define the boundaries of the assessment and consider:
Stakeholder needs Essential system functions Critical paths and/or frequent use cases
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 11
Understand Standards & Law
Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 (d)) - To require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities. This law and applies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. This law was refreshed in 2017.
The standards for this law were refreshed 2017: Standard Refresh and Final Rule and require the rule references Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements of WCAG 2.0
California Government Code 7405 – The code content was previously included in Section 11135, requires all state agencies and departments to comply with Section 508, and it additionally requires any “entity that contracts with a state or local entity” to respond to any and resolve any complaint raised because of the implementation of products or services.
California State Administrative Manual Section 4833 – Information Technology Accessibility Policy also requires state agencies and departments to comply with Section 508.
Statewide Information Management Manual (SIMM) – Section 25 IT Accessibility Resource Guide - Was updated in July of 2016 through a joint effort with California Department of Technology, Government Operations Agency, Health and Human Services Agency, and the Department of Rehabilitation. Section 25 aligns with Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA conformance in addition to the requirements of Section 508. This resource provides information to state entities in meeting requirements for accessible web, information technology (IT) projects, and digital content creation.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 - Additionally, it is recommended that departments follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) with level AA conformance. WCAG 2.0 is the internationally recognized standards and guidelines for web accessibility. By following the guidelines listed in WCAG 2.0, departments will also meet all accessibility requirements listed in Section 508.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 12
Identify Resources
Participants & Skill SetsDefine the project team and determine roles. Identify participants: Developers, Enterprise Architects, Application Managers, Business Analysts, Testers and Subject Matter Experts (SME). Assessing IT systems requires a deep understanding of accessible design principles and real-world accessibility issues. For departments with limited expertise, it is highly recommended to grow competencies within the organization to address accessibility. This can be accomplished by working with end users of assistive technology. Other alternatives include training and familiarization with standards and laws. Iif necessary, assessment services may be outsourced.
For more information, visit the websites for DOR (https://www.dor.ca.gov/SPS-AT/Service ) and California State University, Northridge: Center on Disabilities (http://www.csun.edu/universaldesigncenter/tools-and-training ).
Sample Set for AssessmentDetermine the sample needed, the sample size and approach. The samples should include different types of content and functions available on the system. The following should be considered: Frequently accessed pages based on data collected by your analytics
o Regularly used pages should have specific use cases to ensure thorough testing of system functionality.
o Common and essential documentation and reports should be assessed. Tables, structured content (content with headings and/or sections), forms, images, different
user interface controls such as tab interfaces and expanding menus, frames, multimedia (audio or video), and content that moves or changes with time or by user action
o Identify how different content is tested and evaluated to ensure accessibility.o For example: all images should have their “alternative text” descriptions validated.
The “alternative text” should be accurate, succinct, and not redundant.
Additional Funding or ResourcesIf it is determined available resources are not enough to support the assessment and remediation process, departments may want to consider hiring or contracting additional resources. Some departments have found it beneficial to have a dedicated usability and accessibility team to ensure both aspects are continuously addressed for critical systems. If that route is to be taken, start by assessing the funding needs and determine whether a BCP is required. Follow the BCP process to request funding to perform the assessment. Review the guidelines set by the governing agency and/or Department of Finance (DOF) regarding the BCP process.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 13
Follow Best Practices
Level of EffortTo determine the level of effort for system assessment, consider accessibility testing standard requirements, system complexity and size, testing methodology and knowledge and skill set requirements.
Additional factors to consider when estimating level of effort:
Page countsDetermine the number of pages within the system. The pages should then be classified as simple, medium, and complex. The use cases can assist in classifying pages. This will determine the number of pages or screens needed to be tested and quantify the scope per system.
Software and Tools Determine the assistive technologies that will be used during the assessment. The department should use tools that address visual, audio, kinetic, speech, and cognitive impairments. For example: screen readers, speech recognition, captioning, and magnification software.
Departments may also employ automated accessibility testing tools. Automated tools evaluate compliance with accessibility standards but will not guarantee that the system is usable. It is strongly recommended to evaluate conformance levels manually to ensure that the system has a high-level of usability.
Assessment software and tools: http://webaccess.msu.edu/Help_and_Resources/evaluation-validation.htmlhttps://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/
Third party accessibility assessment servicesMany vendors provide accessibility assessment services. California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) provides a State Price Schedule (SPS) for Assistive Technologies (AT) to make AT and related services available to California State departments:https://www.dor.ca.gov/SPS-AT/Service. Check the market frequently, as several vendors are growing their accessibility services in response to demand from the public.
Logging Defects & DeficienciesTo help with the recording and logging of system defects and deficiencies that will need to be addressed, it is important that the error logging effort be defined in advance. Consider what information the technical team will need to know and include that information in the error reporting forms that will be provided to the users performing the assessment. The technical staff who will be assisting with the assessment and remediation of the issues should consider what information that they would like to receive from the users performing the assessment and what type of reports that they want to utilize after receiving the information.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 14
The assessment planning team should plan their input forms based on the desired output deliverables that they will need to create. Consider including surveys and questionnaires that also inquire about the user experience. Outputs from the assessment may include: Session Logs Issue Log Usability Questionnaire
Communication PlanDefine the communication strategy and timely communicate the accessibility assessment results to all stakeholders, including, but not limited to: Executives Technical staff Accessibility Committee (if available)
Summarize and format the results so they are meaningful for the intended purpose and intended audience. For example, provide detailed reports for technical staff and a high level executive summary for executives.
Report the following in the detailed assessment results: Report Date Individuals or group that conducted the assessment- Include contact information Scope and/or sample - List every page evaluated A statement of conformance- Required for WCAG compliance Common or system wide issues Page-by-page issues Use case by use case issues Results from automated testing Recommendations or next steps
Report the following in the Executive Summary High level overview of findings Common or significant issues Recommendations for next steps & mitigation strategies
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 15
III. ASSESSMENT
Usability and accessibility are different lenses to assess user experience. An accessibility assessment supports evaluation of IT systems for compliance with applicable statutes and policies. For a system to truly be accessible, it must be usable for the person employing assistive technology and provide an experience comparable to a person not using assistive technology. A usability assessment will identify design issues with the user interface that could be problematic for the end-user, and in some cases, prevent access to the system’s core functionality. Completion of both an accessibility and usability assessment is essential to providing the best possible user experience.
Factors to consider when performing the accessibility assessment: Methods & Procedures Assessment Setup & Support Reporting
Methods & Procedures
Automated Accessibility ScansAutomated testing provides a quick/broad initial system assessment and verifies system compliance with governing regulations. However, it is not recommended to use the tool to validate accessibility. Instead, use the tool to help identify problem areas for additional testing and research.
The accessibility scans should be included as part of the standard pre-production testing activities. Performing post-production accessibility validation on an annual basis or after each major release is also recommended.
For information on available tools, refer to: Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools List:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/ Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools
Manual AssessmentManual testing activities identify aspects of the user-interface that are technically accessible but still awkward or difficult for users with accessibility needs. Identify and plan testing activities in advance to ensure thorough testing of the system’s core functionality during the assessment. It is recommended that instead of proving users with step-by-step instructions, participants should be provided with usage scenarios to follow.
Participants and use cases for the assessment need to represent the diverse user community, including users with accessibility needs. When selecting participants for the assessment, it is highly recommended that the user base includes individuals who are skilled with assistive technologies (including: screen readers, speech recognition software, and magnification software). For additional information on how to learn more about assistive technologies and
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 16
testing strategies, or for information on how to find skilled participants, refer to the “Resources” section below.
While performing the assessment, it is recommended that participants use non-production environments to navigate through scenario based exercises. A preconfigured persona and credentials should be provided. Participants should not be asked to enter personally identifiable information; only fictitious data should be used. Participants should be encouraged to navigate naturally through the system or website, guided by functional scenarios.
Participants should also be provided with any known workarounds for assistive technologies. For example: if alternate key strokes in a screen reader must be used for certain functionality to work, that information needs to be provided to the participants before they begin performing the assessment.
Additional Note: Even if an automated assessment was performed, it is recommended that participants validate the functionality and modules manually to ensure that accessibility issues are properly addressed.
Assessment Procedures To help focus users during the assessment, it is recommended to provide the assessors with basic procedures on how to use the system being evaluated. To help facilitate a more thorough review of the system, users should be given a list of tasks to perform. Instructions could be employed to help guide the users through the assessment, but providing them with step-by-step instructions may reduce the scope of the assessment. Instead, consider providing users with enough information to direct them to the modules that need to be evaluated, but don’t direct them fully. This will assist with evaluating not only system accessibility, but also system usability. When evaluating the system using specific assistive technologies, it will also help to provide users with additional instructions or tasks to complete that are more geared towards the assistive tools. This can be done by establishing standard procedures that users can follow for the different technologies: Screen Readers Speech Recognition Software Magnification Software
As different Internet browsers interpret code differently, if the system is web-based, it is also recommended that the testing be performed using multiple browsers.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 17
Assessment Setup and Support
Facilities and Equipment If the scope of the assessment is large and involves outside volunteers, consider creating a testing facility for the people involved in the assessment. When setting up the facility, staff should evaluate all the equipment necessary to perform the assessment.
The room(s) where the assessment will take place should be adequately equipped with all the devices that will be used to access the system being assessed. This includes desktop computers, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. To support the assistive technologies that will also be employed, headsets and microphones for those devices should be installed and properly configured. In cases where testing with assistive technologies can be loud, consider using spacious areas or private rooms to allow for more efficient use of screen readers and speech recognition software. Test systems should have a variety of supported browsers as well as a variety of software tools required to support the objective of the testing cycle.
Consent FormHave the test participants sign a standard consent form. The consent form gives the department permission to report on participants’ comments and behavior. The form also informs participants that the department plans to use their comments for internal briefings, without disclosing their personal information.
Introduction to a Testing Session Design the introduction to provide logistical information. Ensure participants are comfortable in the designated testing area. Provide an overview of the functional test objectives and discuss the participant’s role in the assessment activities using assistive technologies. Provide opportunities and encourage the participants to ask questions on functionality if needed.
Questionnaire on Computer Use, System and Internet Experience Prior to beginning the assessment, use a short questionnaire to assess the participant’s experience with assistive technologies, systems being assessed, computers and the Internet.
Debriefing Questions Conduct debriefing interviews to gather information on the participant’s impression of the assessment activities. For each test cycle, include questions about the facility, equipment, coordination, instructions and proctor support. Develop unique debriefing questions to gather the participant’s personal perspectives on usability and accessibility of the department’s IT systems or websites, as applicable to the objective of the test cycle. Perform debriefing interviews in an interactive conversational style.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 18
Metrics & Reporting
Assessment Results Compile and compare the usability and accessibility assessment to the targeted metrics. Document results in a comprehensive issue or improved user experienced report. Include recommendations for future usability and accessibility improvement.
Outcome vs Objectives Measure the usability and accessibility assessment results against defined objectives. Evaluate the details. Adjust the test approach as warranted and rerun testing in the case the outcome of the testing presents anomalies in the testing approach.
Recommendations Document the outcome of each major usability and accessibility assessment as to the desired behavior, the impact to the usability and accessibility of the system or website, the severity the defect represents, and the recommended adjustments. Outcomes demonstrating non-compliance with required standards should be given highest priority.
Follow the department’s normal incident management process to manage the accessibility assessment reporting phase. This allows report generation using existing defect management tools.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 19
IV. REMEDIATION
Usability and accessibility remediation efforts ensure existing systems provide equal access, satisfy compliance regulations and improve user experience. Things to consider for a when drafting remediation plan for accessibility:
Key decision makers Remediation of existing systems’ known usability and accessibility issues Future process improvements -- If the system will be enhanced or upgraded please see the
SDLC section of the Access IT CA website for more information and considerations.
Evaluating Incidents or DefectsConsider impact to users when evaluating accessibility defects/incidents for existing systems:
Does the defect//incident make the system functionality, website or web page unusable for the user?
Does the defect/incident preclude the system from providing comparable access to services (takes longer to use, less rich experience)?
Does the affected system functionality provide an important service that the user is required or expected to use (file taxes, obtain emergency services)?
PrioritizationIssues can be prioritized in multiple ways. Give priority to items with a high impact to users.
Categorize issues based on impact to users with accessibility needso High Impact: Users are unable to perform important system tasks or unable to
understand important contento Medium Impact: Users can perform important system tasks and/or understand important
content but with some level of difficulty o Low Impact: Users experience inconvenience or moderate frustration
Shared issues: If fixing an issue once automatically fixes it throughout the system, consider working on that issue first
Blocker: Issues that make a system completely inaccessible should take precedence Visibility/criticality: Issues with high-profile pages and mission-critical functions should be
tackled early on Ease of repair: Some issues are much easier to repair than others. If you can fix it quickly, do
it.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 20
MitigationConsider the following if accessibility issues cannot be remediated right away:
Is there an alternative but comparable method for obtaining the same result as obtained from using the system (i.e. telephone support)?
Is there a ready workaround that could provide access to the affected functionality? Is there already a plan to address the issue identified, or could a resolution be added to
upcoming plans for system corrections/enhancements? Is there a natural opportunity to address the issue (new system in development, procurement
of alternate solution)? Is it reasonable to address the issue (legacy system with minimal support)? Are resources available to address the issue? Is there an alternative to the affected system functionality that, while not providing comparable
access, does allow the user to gain the benefit of the affected system functionality (user can mail a form rather than using the website)?
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 21
V. Resources
Access IT California: Online ResourcesResource URLProject Documentation http://www.dor.ca.gov/DOR-Web-Accessibility
Laws and PoliciesLaw/Policy URLSection 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794d)
https://www.section508.gov/
State of CaliforniaState Administrative Manual (SAM) 4833
https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/sam/SamPrint/new/sam_master/sam_master_File/chap4800/4833.pdf
State of CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 7405
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=18.1.&article
Accessibility StandardsStandard URLWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Section 508 Standards https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-standards
WebAIM http://webaim.org/standards/wcag/Statewide Information Management Manual (SIMM)
https://cdt.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SIMM-25-July-2016.pdf
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 22
Useful LinksLink URLAmerican Foundation for the BlindCreating Accessible Websites
http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/technology-evaluation/creating-accessible-websites/123
California State University, NorthridgeCenter on Disabilities
http://www.csun.edu/cod
ADA https://www.ada.gov/access-technology/index.htmlHHS https://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/making-files-accessible/checklist/
index.htmlSection 508 Self-Evaluation Questionnaire
https://www.ada.gov/508/agencque.htm
Useful ReferencesName Reference508 Web Compliance and Remediation Framework
Secretary, HHS Office of the. "508 Web Compliance and Remediation Framework." HHS.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 19 Aug. 2015. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.
Evaluating Your Institution’s Web Accessibility Efforts Part 2
"Evaluating Your Institution's Web Accessibility Efforts Part 2: Evaluating the Product." NCDAE= The National Center on Disability and Access to Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.
Accessibility in Practice: A Process-Driven Approach to Accessibility
"Accessibility in Practice: A Process-driven Approach to Accessibility." The Paciello Group. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.
ITLA24 – May 19, 2017 Access IT ACRM – Page 23
