Michael Fernandez, presenter While the growth and adoption of electronic resources has been exponential, there has been a concurrent lag in ensuring that e-resources are accessible by users with disabilities. Vendors have become increasingly aware of this issue and are taking steps to address it; however, given the sheer size of the library marketplace, there is a noticeable lack of consistency across vendor platforms. In the Summer of 2016, American University Library began evaluating the accessibility of its web content as part of a university-wide initiative focusing on Section 508 compliance. This review entailed not only library hosted websites, but also third party platforms for databases, e-journals, and e-books. In order to assess the accessibility of the library’s subscribed e-resources, the Electronic Resources Management Unit created an accessibility inventory. All subscribed e-resources were evaluated to gauge the efforts being made by vendors to make their products accessible. The methodology for this inventory involved seeking out voluntary product accessibility templates (VPATs), identifying clearly marked accessibility statements on the vendor site or platform, and reviewing current license agreements for verbiage that ensures a commitment to accessibility regulations and allows for remediation of accessibility issues that may be identified. This inventory represented an initial but crucial step towards e-resource accessibility. AU Library was able to identify the vendors who have already taken measures, and for those who had not, we identified the opportunity to create a dialogue. In this presentation, I’ll detail methods and resources that can be used in order to assess the status of a collection’s accessibility. Additionally, I’ll describe how AU Library was able to collaborate on this shared goal by identifying allies across the university in the offices of assistive technology and procurement. Finally, I’ll discuss our strategies for further educating and engaging with vendors.

1. How Accessible Is Our
Collection? Performing an E-
Resources Accessibility Review
Michael Fernandez
Electronic Resources Librarian
NASIG 2017 | Indianapolis, Indiana

2. Agenda
• Cover accessibility laws, benchmarks, and tools
• Detail a methodology for assessing the accessibility of
an e-resources collection
• Show how to identify allies and develop relationships
• Discuss vendor outreach strategies

3. American University
• 12,000 FTE
• $4.5 million e-
resources budget
• 500+ databases
• ERM Unit – one
librarian, two FT
specialists

4. Project Origins
• July 2016 memo from the University President
• Initiative to overhaul all AU web content
• Prioritized accessibility
• Recent legal cases (Penn State, University of Montana)
• Ongoing efforts to improve library webpages
• E-resources were not being looked at
• ERM Unit undertook accessibility inventory project

5. What is Accessibility?
• Same information
• Same time
• Same price
• Same quality
Source: Dresselhaus, A. (2013). “The Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Library
Acquisitions.” http://works.bepress.com/angela_dresselhaus/24.

6. Accessibility Benchmarks
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
• Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT)

7. http://uniaccessig.org/lua/vpat-repository/

8. https://sites.google.com/site/ebookaudit2016/home

9. What We Looked For
• In order to provide an overview of the accessibility of
the library’s e-resources, the ERM Unit tried to identify
common accessibility indicators for each resource
• Accessibility statement
• VPAT
• License language

10. And Now A Few Words About VPATs
• Not all VPATs are created equal!
• Vendor supplies data (or doesn’t)
• No outside evaluation
• Lack of consistency in detail and completeness
• Nearly 20% of VPAT criteria found to contain errors
(DeLancey, 2015)

13. Compiling the Inventory
• Initial list of 528 resources generated from ERMS
• Resources sorted by vendor with numerous titles on the
same platform
• Accessibility statements
• Linked from home page or Terms Of Use section
• Looked for language on usability, compliance with Section
508 and WCAG

14. https://www.alexanderstreet.com/page/accessibility-statement

15. Gathering VPATs
• Linked from accessibility statement
• VPAT Repository
• Google ‘[vendor name] + vpat’
• Contact vendor

16. Reviewing Licenses
• Any language within the on-file
license outlining the vendor’s
adherence to accessibility guidelines
or willingness to work with the library
on compliance
• Most of the licenses reviewed dated
back 10 years, or more
Source: Don Shall, https://flic.kr/p/8YVhsj, (CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0)

18. Representing Accessibility in the
ERMS
• Going forward, it would be helpful to integrate this information
with our other licensing data
• No defined fields for accessibility or VPAT checkbox in current
ERMS
• Compliance indicator in Alma
• Use custom notes/fields?

19. Results
Accessibility Measure Number of E-resources Percentage of E-Resources
Accessibility Statement 340 64%
VPAT 292 55%
License Language 20 4%
Number of Accessibility Measures Number of E-Resources Percentage of E-Resources
At least one measure 376 71%
Two or more measures 276 52%
All three measures 3 0.6%

20. Results by Vendor
Accessibility Measure Number of Vendors Percentage of Vendors
Accessibility Statement 60 31%
VPAT 51 27%
License Language 6 3%
Number of Accessibility Measures Number of Vendors Percentage of Vendors
At least one measure 77 40%
Two or more measures 36 19%
All three measures 3 1.5%

21. Resource to Vendor Comparison
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
License Language
VPAT
Accessibility Statement
Resource Vendor

22. Number of Measures Present
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
All three measures
Two or more measures
At least one measure
Resource Vendor

23. Analysis
• Percentage-wise, the portion of vendors with accessibility
statements and VPATs roughly half compared to e-
resources
• Small number of vendors account for a disproportionately
large amount of e-resources
• Larger vendors much more likely to present accessibility measures
• Specialized resources from smaller vendors less likely to have
knowledge of/bandwidth for accessibility
• Some resources not designed for academic use
• Subject area/concentration may also play a role
• Dearth of licenses with accessibility language likely because
many date back a decade or more

24. Caveats
• Inventory provides a snapshot of the collection’s
accessibility and to identify which vendors have
undertaken efforts to address accessibility
• Measures represent what vendors should already be
doing at a minimum
• Accessibility statements and VPATs do not equal
compliance
• Accessibility is a moving target

25. Accessibility Language in Licenses
• LibLicense Model License has suggested verbiage under
Section 5.1 Licensor Performance Obligations
• http://liblicense.crl.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/modellicensenew2014revmay2015.pdf
• Consult with your institution’s procurement department,
legal counsel
• American University’s suggested accessibility clause
• [VENDOR] agrees that all services and products provided through this
Agreement shall be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities and
shall comply with all applicable disability accessibility laws including
but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

26. Assistive Technology
• Screen readers
• NVDA https://www.nvaccess.org
• JAWS
http://www.freedomscientific.com/Downloads/JA
WS
• Built in – Narrator (PC), VoiceOver (Mac)
• Magnification
• MAGic
http://www.freedomscientific.com/Downloads/M
AGic
• WAVE http://wave.webaim.org/

27. Other Allies
• Identify services for users with disabilities and connect with
offices that work with assistive technology
• Usability testing may be done inside or outside the library,
depending on the institution
• Library staff may lack the training or bandwidth to take on
usability testing
• Disability services offices can partner with the library,
educate on assistive technology, and communicate user
needs
• Librarians benefit by taking that knowledge and
communicating it with vendors

28. Vendor Outreach
Source: Julia Taylor,
https://flic.kr/p/b7o6We, (CC-BY-NC-ND
2.0)

29. Lessons Learned
• Vendor counsel may not agree to compliance
guarantee, instead “reasonable efforts” or “where
possible”
• License should include the right to adapt or modify
materials so they will meet needs of users with
disabilities
• If the product does not comply, the Licensee has the
right to adapt the Licensed Materials in order to comply
with federal and state law. (LibLicense Model)
• Institutional policies and/or state regulations can lend
additional weight

30. Next Steps
• Request VPATs, accessibility statements from vendors
• Consult with accessibility services staff on usability
testing
• Request the addition of accessibility verbiage into new
licenses
• Review 29% of e-resources from inventory with no
accessibility measures
• Prioritization based on usage

31. Questions?
Michael Fernandez
fernm@american.edu

32. References
• DeLacey, L. (2015). “Assessing the Accuracy of Vendor-
Supplied Accessibility Documentation,” Library Hi Tech, v.33,
no. 1, pp.103-113.
• Dresselhaus, A. (2013). “The Americans with Disabilities Act
Compliance and Library Acquisitions.”
http://works.bepress.com/angela_dresselhaus/24
• E-book Accessibility Audit.
https://sites.google.com/site/ebookaudit2016/home
• VPAT Repository. http://uniaccessig.org/lua/vpat-repository