Website/App Individual Handin

Accessibility problem reports are assessed by looking at UARS. A high quality UAR should Clearly describe the problem or success Correctly assigned 1 or more WCAG guidelines to the problem or success Provide a good rationale for the severity of the problem / importance of the success (If a problem) Articulate an actionable path for addressing the problem found In addition, UARS form a group that together represent an assesssment. As such, they should Reflect the most important potential issues with the system being assessed Include web page or app accessibility problems that are not found with an automated accessibility checker Address at least two of the four areas of POUR (perceivable; operable; understandable; robust). If there are no problems, or problems in only one area, positive UARs without fixes are permitted (with approval of the course staff). How this will be assessed: You should turn in a reflection stating what app or website you were assessing, which tasks you were assessing, and which AT and/or automated tools you used to generate the UARS.

This applies to presentations, word documents, and pdfs. You’ll need to demonstrate this on at least one presentation and one assignment writeup that is long and complex enough to have headers and structure to achieve competency. Best practices: Avoid visual clutter (e.g. use San serif fonts (for digital viewing), don’t have too many things on the page) Use headers appropriately. Headers should be nested like they are in HTML (e.g., H2 after and H1). For example, in Microsoft Word these are built-in “styles” and in Google Docs you can see these under “Format -> Paragraph Styles.” Use proper color contrast. Write alt text for all non-decorative photos, diagrams and videos. Use meaningful hyperlink text (e.g., "check out my web page" instead of "click here") Properly mark up tables Screen reader order is correct (in documents where it applies, such as Powerpoint)  \ Slides have room for captions Videos on slides are captioned Document/slide is not overly cluttered Font sizes are large enough (above 20 ideally for slides; above 11 for documents) How to demonstrate this competency: You will be assessed on this any time you turn in a required document.

You should demonstrate that you are expanding your familiarity with various accessibility technologies. Not all AT will count toward this assignment, and the teaching staff will determine what counts. Here are some things that would not count. Check with us if you have any questions. A technology you are already familiar with / using (i.e. if you are a screen reader user, don't ask to be assessed on your familiarity with screen readers) - The technologies you ask to be evaluated on are very similar and/or address very similar accessibility needs. For example, if you ask to be evaluated on a web based screen reader, and then NVDA, those would be too similar. The technologies you select are not used by disabled people. Your description of these technologies does not demonstrate learning or investigation of disability use cases. How to demonstrate this competency: Turn in a reflection telling us about AT you have presented about or used in your assignments. The reflection should include information about how the AT works, users, and strengths and weaknesses of the AT. You should also demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the AT. For example, understanding that audiobooks are not only useful for BLV people but also used by people with dyslexia and what limitations exist in their availability or usefulness.

Demonstrates that you can use an accessibility checker to assess whether a web page or app is accessible. This might include things like identifying potential issues with the POUR guidelines such as: missing image descriptions incorrect structure for forms lack of language information  incorrect header structure bad color contrast How to demonstrate this competency: Turn in UARS generated based on the accessibility checker *and* a reflection describing which automated tool you used, what you liked most and disliked most about it, and how you checked POUR using it.

The primary measure of competency for this is the ability to argue for how a given technology meets or fails to meet the 10 principals of disability justice laid out by Sins Invalid. How to demonstrate this competency: Define each principal you are analyziing in your own words.  Write 1-2 paragraphs (~200-300 words) explaining how the service or technology described in the article you picked addresses, or fails to address, that principal.

Correctly understands the premise of accessibility projects. Should be able to summarize and critique accessibility projects, including your own, on the following concerns: - Is it ableist - What parts of the work are accessible and what are not (for example, are both design tools, and their outputs accessible?) - Are people with disabilities engaged in guiding this work? At what stages? - Is it being used to give control and improve agency for people with disabilities - Is it addressing the whole community (intersectionality, multiple disabled people, multiply disabled people) How to demonstrate this competency: Write 1-2 sentences answering each of the questions above.

A first person account is written or presented by someone who Uses this technology themselves on a regular basis Has a disability Describes first person concerns such as: How do they the use device to meet their needs? In what ways does it help or fall short? What improvements or changes would they like to see? Is their use of the AT specific to needs in their life (i.e. commuting, work)? A first person account that meets the requirements of this assignment is not A teaching video/presentation An advertisement. Based on your personal experience How to demonstrate this competency: Turn in a brief reflection explaining how your first person account meets the criteria above

Can describe images of various types including pictures, diagrams, screen shots, and so on in an accessible fashion. Image descriptions should be concise, complete and accurate. You should use best practices to decide when to mention the background, describe people, and so on. How to demonstrate this competency: You will be evaluated on this any time you turn in a document that has images in it. You can also ask us to assess a specific image description in some other context.

Plain Language Writing is part of ethical research in accessibility, namely to share research with the accessibility community. Please pick at least four guidelines to focus on from the following list and specify which four you picked. You can address more to reach a higher competency score. Follows best practices for plain language writing. Guidelines we will assess: Use simple words Use positive language Use short paragraphs Use short sentences Avoid jargon Use active voice Use present tense Use examples Use headers Use transition words How this will be assessed: You should turn in a reflection that states which guidelines from the list above you want us to consider during our assessment.