|
Digital Content and Materials: Practical Guidance
What Is Expected
- Create or manage digital materials with accessibility in mind when feasible, meaning
when tools, institutional support, and reasonable time allow within the context of
instructional responsibilities.
- Prioritize current and forward‑facing content, including instructional, administrative, and public‑facing materials.
- Work collaboratively with the appropriate support offices when challenges arise.
What Is Not Required
- Employees are not required to remediate all historical or archived content.
- Employees are not expected to independently determine technical or legal compliance.
- Employees are not required to remove content solely because it is imperfect or flagged
by an automated tool.
Consultative accessibility reviews and expert guidance are provided to assist with
instructional, training, and administrative materials. Digital Learning Innovations
(DLI) oversees and manages course accessibility evaluations, which take the form of
consultations, with findings documented in the Course Quality Database. These documented
findings are not intended to serve as employee performance indicators, but to support
institutional planning, identify common support needs, and track progress over time.
When materials cannot be fully remediated, institutional support offices can assist with documenting good‑faith efforts and exploring reasonable solutions or alternatives. For example, faculty are encouraged to document efforts in partnership with DLI, which can assist in researching potential solutions, monitoring emerging accessibility technologies, and make recommendations to institutional and unit leaders regarding investment in tools that support instructional accessibility efforts.
Additionally, accessibility training is consistently available for instructors through
independent online resources, instructor-led workshops, and just-in-time consultation,
with asynchronous self-directed training available for non-instructional accessibility
needs and developed by DLI in collaboration with relevant offices.
Third-Party and Vendor Materials
When accessibility gaps exist in instructional or training software or other materials provided by publishers or vendors, employees should work with the relevant department (such as the KSU Bookstore, Procurement, or UITS) and document any communications with vendors regarding the gap. Unit and institutional leaders are responsible for deciding whether to continue using those materials, seek alternatives, or take other corrective actions. Employees are not individually responsible for resolving technical accessibility limitations in publisher or vendor systems beyond reasonable reporting and collaboration with institutional support offices.
Technology Tools
KSU evaluates accessibility during technology purchasing and renewal processes, including
review of Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs). Accessibility is considered
alongside functionality, security, pedagogical or operational need, and cost.
Employees have access to institution‑supported tools, including:
- YuJa Panorama (integrated in D2L Brightspace for instructional use)
- YuJa DocHub (document accessibility support for instructional and administrative content)
Digital Learning Innovations (DLI) provides guidance on appropriate use and limitations
of available instructional tools. The Office of Procurement will also assist in documenting
accessibility of purchases.
Communications
Strategic Communications and UITS oversee monitoring, auditing, and remediation processes
for institutional web properties. Responsibilities for public-facing content are distinct
from instructional content responsibilities. KSU subscribes to website accessibility
auditing software as well as other tools and add-on features aligned with the need
for websites and public-facing content. Stakeholders may request a website audit by
submitting a request to Strategic Communications.
Student Support
Student reports of accessibility barriers are reviewed collaboratively by appropriate
institutional units including Student Disability Services in a timely manner. Both
faculty and students are supported throughout the resolution process with the goal
of reaching the accessibility needs of the student with minimal disruption to all.
Faculty participation may be requested as part of a collaborative resolution process
supported by Student Disability Services and relevant institutional offices.
Documented Good Faith Effort
Documentation of accessibility efforts is a critical component of institutional compliance.
Documentation should be practical and proportionate, using normal communication and
existing records whenever possible rather than creating new reporting burdens. Documentation
may include email correspondence, meeting notes, vendor communications, accessibility
review reports, and tool-generated records. Removing content from online availability
without a replacement does not, by itself, address accessibility obligations and is
strongly discouraged. Unresolved issues should be reasonably researched to identify
a solution or escalated through established institutional pathways to identify appropriate
alternatives, mitigation strategies, and other due diligence tasks.
|
