Just about all of the “tools” in GAFE can be used by anyone using the “public” version by opening a free Google account. In other words, anyone can create a Google account and instantly have accessed to many if not most of these free tools. The tools include:

• Gmail – the e-mail system, including mail servers, storage and archiving.
• Google Docs – a series of three “office suite” applications including word processor, spreadsheet and presentation applications.
• Google Sites – a web page hosting and page maker utility.
• Google Groups – an application service that creates custom mailing distribution lists.
• Google Calendar – an application that allows users to create multiple calendars and share them with other users.

What makes GAFE different from the public form of Google Apps is that for an annual domain license fee of $10, an educational institution can control all of these services within one domain name, manage their users’ access and control access to the content. Like the public form of Google Apps, all of these services are provided through the use of a browser (or special Google application for mobile devices) and server-based software in the so called “Cloud.” Apart from the annual fee, schools only need computers and access to the internet to be able to use this service.

Many schools and institutions of higher education around the country have signed up for GAFE as it can provide a tremendous savings to the organization. With the GAFE services, the institution may no longer have to maintain their own servers for web and mail services and may also no longer have to purchase and support desktop office suite applications like Microsoft Office. GAFE is operating system agnostic meaning it can run on any computer linked to the internet.

So what’s the problem?

The major problem comes in the form of issues related to the accessibility of GAFE by students with disabilities and the accessibility of content created by GAFE tools.

In a research study conducted by the Access Technology Higher Education Network (ATHEN) Google Apps Accessibility Interest Group published in October 2011, a comprehensive functional assessment was made of the Google Docs tools in GAFE by a cadre of people using a variety of common assistive technologies (AT) (ATHEN, 2011). In the executive summary, they state:

“These tests show that many people with disabilities are currently unable to successfully use these applications. No assistive technology tested was able to fully perform every function within these applications, and the level of support for assistive technologies ranged from being able to perform many, but not all of the functions to not being able to use the applications at all. Some of the major problems include:

• Speech recognition software users cannot dictate text into, or interact with the application.
• Keyboard-only users often cannot access the application menu, and thus, much of the functionality of the application.
• High contrast users cannot see many of the toolbar buttons and other user interface elements.
• Screen reader users cannot interact with the application reliably and effectively, reach and perform the desired functions, and cannot always determine what is being asked in “popup” windows.

Because of these and many other problems, which prevent entire populations of people from fully or sometimes even partially using the software, Documents and the Document List cannot be considered accessible.”

Some additional highlights from the initial ATHEN report were:

• The keyboard focus is not always visible.
• There is inconsistent implementation across browsers.
• There is no ability to apply established web accessibility standards when generating content.
• There is no ability to save user preferences for AT.

In a subsequent report published in February 2012 [PDF], ATHEN reviewed the results of a comprehensive functional assessment of two additional GAFE tools: Gmail and Google Calendar. The findings of that assessment suggest that Google had made some advancement in both the GAFE product and its documentation but it concluded that “there were still significant problems.” The authors concluded: “Google could easily do much more to make the entire interface more accessible. Significant work still needs to be done for visually impaired users, especially screen reader users. Many of the problems encountered in this report could have been solved if standard user interface elements had been used in ways specified by the W3C through the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).”

In a March 20, 2012 webinar hosted by EASI: Equal Access to Software and Information and presented by Greg Kraus and Scott Williams, two members of the ATHEN Google Apps Accessibility Interest Group, the following was learned:

• Despite an ongoing “conversation” with representatives at Google, progress to resolve the accessibility issues with GAFE has been slow in coming.
• Google appears most interested in pursuing a way to get GAFE to work with its own browser and text-to-speech plugin (ChromeVox), rather than working to ensure GAFE works with all browsers and all popular screen reader AT.
• For users of screen reader AT, there were issues with the large number and over-dependency on the use of “hot keys” (access keys) to complete common activities and the occasional conflict of the GAFE access keys with those used by other screen readers.
• Documentation on the use of the accessibility features of GAFE, while extensive, is not complete or easy to understand.
• Google Docs, the content-generating, office suite tools in GAFE were particularly difficult to use with AT including with ChromeVox which often crashed while using Google docs. (Note: This behavior was also observed by this author during a subsequent test of ChromeVox on a MacBookPro using OSX Lion.)

Conclusions

Again in citing the ATHEN report, it is important to note that GAFE is a relatively new product which has grown considerably in popularity and in functionality. Google has expressed some willingness to achieve success in terms of accessibility of the product and continues to work in that direction.

However, this consultant agrees with the final conclusions stated in the report:

“Google has made significant improvements for screen reader users when using Documents and the Document List, but these tests show that support for screen reader users is still poor and the needs of people with other types of disabilities have not been met. Considerable work still needs to be done to ensure that people with all types of disabilities can fully use the Google Application suite.” (ATHEN, 2011, p. 12) [PDF]

References

Access Technology Higher Education Network (ATHEN). Report on the accessibility of Google document. October 18, 2011.

Access Technology Higher Education Network (ATHEN). ATHEN Report on the Accessibility of GMail and Google Calendar. February 29, 2012. [PDF]

Kraus, G. & Williams, S. Report on the Accessibility of Google Apps (from the CSUN Conference), EASI Webinar: How Accessible Are Google Apps? Presented on March 20, 2012.

Note: January 30, 2012: Siteimprove.com has just launched a new website. I will update my links in this article as soon as I can find the old article.

I found a link to this report by Siteimprove.com in the Accessibility group on LinkedIn this morning regarding a recent review made of the websites of 25 public universities in the United States. The study covers five major aspects of each website including which content management systems were used, how many broken links (per CMS) were discovered, misspellings, common accessibility issues, and the use of platform independent document formats. I was immediately drawn to the statistics on “misspellings” and was not surprised to see that there were an average of 107 misspelling per website. The most common misspellings were: “Oportunities, Technolgy, Accessability, Chemisty, Acquistion, Coodinator, Sustainabilty.”

I decided to do this brief blog on the topic noting in particular the misspelling of the word “accessibility.” It was about then that I noticed that in MY previous blog entry I had misspelled the word “Assistive.”

In all fairness, the spell-checker in my browser does not know how to spell “assistive” either.

C’est la vie.

Read the whole report…

PS: I fixed the other blog entry and am looking for more typos…

______

Photo credit: Licensed through Creative Commons by akachela

When I had the opportunity to meet with one of the focus groups, most of the other faculty were rather traditional types who had graced the campus for many years and appeared to enjoy their roles as “sage on the stage.” There was quite a bit of skepticism about distance learning and even though I had a positive reputation for teaching in the traditional modality at that university, the majority of faculty didn’t really seem to value what I was doing.

When it came my time to talk, I chattered away about my views and how as an institution we needed to get out there and expand out “presence” on the Internet and World Wide Web, that we needed to build more server capacity and in particular, not invest in the large scale college library expansion program that was in the works. I remember the look of disdain on the faces of my colleague, but I pressed forward. I can remember one asking me if I really believed that there would come a time when traditional students would actually take distance learning classes in lieu of the campus-based, terrestrial offerings that then were the norm.

The gentleman who was leading the focus group appeared to welcome my vision and even though I suspect he was not suppose to shape the discussion, he gave me lots of clear messages that he thought my vision was indeed the correct one.

The library project did go forward, but on a much smaller scale. Fortunately, the director of the library was also a very smart guy and he and his staff had already seen the writing on the walls. In fact, he eventually became the vice president in charge of information technology at the university and shepherded through a rather dramatic number of technology advances in the next decade.

With this backdrop, I read the recent news story about the pending closure of the medical library at Johns Hopkins University. While this is a loss of tradition, it is clearly, as the title mentions, a sign of the times. The author makes this clever observation:

People don’t go to Johns Hopkins for appendectomies. They go there with rare and difficult conditions to seek help from the top medical minds in the world. If I’m at Hopkins as a patient and not to visit old friends and colleagues, I don’t want my team of physicians and residents to be searching through the stacks for possible answers or keys to my treatment. I want them to pull out their iPads and have instant access to the information they need to make me better.

Read the whole article “Sign of the times: Johns Hopkins shutters its medical library.”

———-

Photo credit: Image licensed through Creative Commons by Brett Jordan

Among the presenters at this year’s conference is yours truly, John Brandt representing Maine CITE and the Maine AIM Program. Also there will be my colleague Cynthia Curry, Consultant and MLTI Integration Mentor. Both of these presentations will take place on Friday and require full conference registration.

My presentation, AT & AIM – Tablets and Pods in the Classroom will demonstrate and evaluate several devices and apps used for instruction and as assistive technology (AT). Used with Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) these devices can be very helpful to students with disabilities. This presentation takes place at 11:00 am (session 2) in the Arnold Room.

Cynthia’s presentation, Text to Speech, Speech to Text, and Screen Readers will discuss “computer programs that talk.” In the presentation she will demonstrate and discuss how these unique applications can be used to enhance student learning. This presentation takes place at 1:20 pm (session 3) in the Washington Room.

Back by popular demand this year is Sarah Herrlinger, Senior Marketing Manager in Apple’s education division. Last year, Sarah presented on the accessibility features built into Apple’s Mac OS X and iOS and gave us a first-hand look at some of the features of the new iPad. This year, Sarah will again talk on this topic and demonstrate some of the new and improve accessibility features of Mac OS X and iOS in her presentation entitled Accessibility Features of Mac OS X and Apple Mobile.

Sarah’s presentation is co-sponsored by Maine CITE and Apple, Inc. and is offered free of charge to ACTEM members. It will take place from 1:30 to 4:30 in the Sagadahoc Room. If you are not an ACTEM member and would like to attend, please contact Maine CITE.

For more information about the conference and to register, please visit the ACTEM Conference website.

We’ve recently made some accessibility enhancements to Google Calendar, Google Docs and Google Sites. Improvements have been made in keyboard shortcuts and support for screen readers among other items.

Google Calendar: Google Calendar now has new keyboard shortcuts and better screen reader support for our blind users. Members of the blind community can now use JAWS, VoiceOver and ChromeVox to manage your calendars, create and edit events or simply browse your events.

Google Docs and Google Sites: New keyboard shortcuts and better screen reader support with support for two screen readers: JAWS and ChromeVox.

Read the rest of the report

As reported here, you will recall that Google had gotten into some hot water with the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) last spring. NFB had lodged a formal complaint to the Department of Justice on concerns it had regarding the accessibility of these free applications. We’ll be checking them out and spreading the word.

The Law School Admissions Council (LASC) in the US has agreed to make its website fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users following legal action by the country’s National Federation of the Blind (NFB).

The NFB filed a lawsuit against LASC in 2009 claiming that the organisation’s website – used by nearly every US law school to accept student applications – violated the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (a California-based piece of discrimination legislation).

The federation claimed it was not possible for screen-readers to recognise various text on the website, meaning that visually impaired law school applicants who wished to apply online were forced to rely on assistance from a sighted employee – over the phone – at LASC’s customer support service, which was only available at certain times.

Following a two-year legal battle a settlement has been reached whereby LASC will make its website accessible by allowing screen-readers to recognise all text on the site, meaning visually impaired applicants will be able to independently complete applications at a time of their choosing.

The changes will come into effect from September 1 this year, and the NFB will perform semi-annual accessibility testing of the site until September 1, 2012.

From 2006-08, the NFB was involved in a similar case supporting a class action against the US superstore chain Target for the alleged inaccessibility of its website. Target eventually agreed to pay six million dollars and make changes to its site, while not accepting liability (see original story on Headstar).

__

Copyright 2011 Headstar Ltd, used as permitted.

To subscribe to this free monthly bulletin, email eab-subs@headstar.com with ‘subscribe eab’ in the subject header. You can list other email addresses to subscribe in the body of the message. Please encourage all your colleagues to sign up! To unsubscribe at any time, put ‘unsubscribe eab’ in the subject header.

Over the past few years increasing number of universities – including the University of Maine – and more recently an increasing number of public school systems have adopted Google Apps for Education and G-mail as their mail system. On the Google Apps for Education home page, they claim “more than 10 million students” use the service.

But there might be a problem.

Last week, amid the news surrounding various world crises, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) posted a press release indicating that they had “requested that the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, investigate civil rights violations committed by” two major universities for using Google Apps for Education. They state that this is “because the schools have adopted technology that is not accessible to the blind.” A similar request for investigation has been filed against four Oregon public school districts that are using Google Apps.

The press release cites the fact that “United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Education have specifically warned all university presidents against the adoption of inaccessible technology.”

NFB has included links to videos they prepared showing the inaccessibility features of the Google Apps in question.

It should be noted that there are probably other mail systems and applications used in schools and universities that are not accessible to people with disabilities, but now that Google Apps for Education have been called on the carpet, it would be pretty hard to defend their use now. That is unless Google puts their tremendous technical skills and considerable wealth into fixing the Apps immediately.

Read the entire Press Release from the National Federation of the Blind.

I had this feeling today when I read a series of articles from this week’s Chronicle of Higher Education about accessible and universal design in college websites (links to all articles below). The cover story for the series tells the story of Darrell Shandrow, a senior at Arizona State University at Tempe. Mr. Shandrow is a journalism major who at age 37 would be considered a “non-traditional” student. But what makes Mr. Shandrow all the more non-traditional is the fact that he is blind student who isn’t afraid of making a few waves.

The right place, right time comment has to do with the fact that I had just blogged a few days ago about this exact topic. It’s nice to see some supporting documentation for my position.

If you are interested in the stuff I write about here you should absolutely read these articles. And like most on-line news stories today there is a place to make comments. I find reading the comments to often be more informative than the article. In this case, the comments made by a few people prove the point of why we need to be advocates for accessible and universal design and why we need to be vigilant.

After reading the articles the first thing I did was send the links out to a half-dozen colleagues and put links on Twitter. Then I went and testing the home page of my alma mater. St. Francis College of Brooklyn would probably score in the lower third.

As someone who started their web design career as a university webmaster, I have a particular affection for this topic. But to me web accessibility for a college/university website is a no-brainer.

The series:

Chronicle of Higher Education article “Colleges Lock Out Blind Students Online”

Sidebar: About Cal State’s success

Sidebar: Chart ranking the best and worst college web sites

Universal Design, Usability, and Accessibility

The Lion Shrine at Penn State University by Nathaniel C. Sheetz - Image from Wikimedia Commons

I am still waiting for the definitive legal case which affirms that the websites of all institutions of higher education (IHE) be accessible to people with disabilities. There was a celebrated case in California a few years back where the entire state university system was ruled to be out of compliance. The net result was the development of strong guidelines and rules for UC campuses.

Penn State University may be the next IHE to get paid a visit by the Office of Civil Rights. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting: “The National Federation of the Blind sent a seven-page complaint letter dated Friday to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that Penn State is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Having spent some time in Pennsylvania, I know that Penn State is huge with satellite campuses around the state. They have also been big proponents of distance learning and having personally used their system, I can confirm this statement also made in the article, “Course-management software, which allows students and professors to interact online and perform course-related functions, also ‘is almost completely inaccessible to blind users,’ the complaint says.”

It will be interesting to follow this case. Go Nittany Lions!

Resources:

The Philadelphia Inquirer article, “Blind advocates allege Penn State services not blind friendly”

Information about IHE’s web accessibility obligations under the law from AccessIT

The applications range from the familiar like OpenOffice suite and Thunderbird e-mail client, to some interesting ones like WebbIE – a highly configurable and accessible browser which could be used by many folks with disabilities. There are even games and utilities available.

The beauty of the Eduapps system is that their website is set up to allow you to download a bundle of the apps and upload them to a stickdrive. Then you can take the stickdrive wherever you go, plug it into any Windows-based PC and voila! you have your apps right there to use.

Eduapps has already bundled a bunch of the applications into eight packages (see list below), but you can customize your bundle and Eduapps will package them up for you to download and upload to your stickdrive.

There is even a collection of help pages, tutorials and videos to assist you in how to download and how to use the applications.

It all looks pretty neat and the price is unbelievable. It’s all FREE!

EduApps were developed by the JISC Regional Support Centre Scotland North & East which is supported by government funding in the UK.

Here are the Eduapps bundles (from the Eduapps website):

• AccessApps, provides a range of solutions to support writing, reading and planning, as well as sensory, cognitive and physical difficulties.
• TeachApps, is a collection of software specifically designed for teachers or lecturers.
• LearnApps, as its name implies, is specifically designed for learners. All learners or students can benefit from LearnApps.
• MyStudyBar, is our most popular program, providing a suite of apps to support literacy.
• MyVisBar, a high contrast floating toolbar, designed to support learners with visual difficulties.
• MyAccess, a portal to all your favourite and accessible applications providing inclusive e-learning options for all.
• Create&Convert, is our new kid on the block, designed to help publish accessible information for all.
• Accessible Formatting WordBar, create accessible Word documents with ease using our innovative WordBar.

Go to Eduapps

———-
Photo licensed through Creative Commons – by adactio