����ԭ��

Over the spring and summer, those of us at AccessComputing have been acutely aware of the calls to end structural inequalities and racial injustices. We endorse this open letter authored by the leaders of Black in Computing.

At AccessComputing, we partner with organizations that work to increase the participation of Black and other minoritized people in computing fields and participate in conferences and workshops that serve these groups.��We engage every year with the ACM Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing and the CRA-WP (Computing Research Association Widening Participation Committee) Grad Cohort Workshop for Underrepresented Minorities and Persons with Disabilities. As a result of the continued engagement with our partners, our AccessComputing Team of approximately 475 students with disabilities is about 11% Black, closely matching the demographics of the US. We continue to use an intersectional lens in our work related to disability and find ways to engage in anti-racism.

My name is Brianna Wimer,��and I am a��senior at The University of Alabama. When I first arrived at college, I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I decided to major in computer science. Once I started to get acclimated with my classes freshman year, my cousin introduced me to a professor��with a research lab who was looking for more people to join. After meeting with the professor and beginning research with him, I quickly became passionate about his work and research focus. It was like my eyes were finally opened to the backstage of all the amazing technology innovations, and I knew I wanted to be a part of it.

For the summer, I knew I wanted to continue working in research. I reached out to a professor in the Computer Science Department at Alabama and asked about a program��called Distributed Research Experience for Undergraduates (DREU). She informed me about how the program is intended to match students with professors who have research that matches the students’ research interests. I was very nervous about applying and the idea of going to a new place all summer by myself, but I was also��excited because it was a way for me to meet people from other institutions who have similar passions and interests in research as me. When I received an email saying I was accepted in the program and that they wanted to match me with Dr. Short from Tufts University, I was ecstatic.

Originally, the research I was supposed to work on robotics with Dr. Short; however, I couldn't physically do the work, so we switched my focus to another project. I have been trying��to use interactive biofeedback games to assist adults and college students with attention deficit hyper disorder (ADHD) learn to control their intense emotions in a healthier way. While it is not talked about as often, people with ADHD who have impulsive behaviors also can have many impulsive emotional outbursts. These emotional outbursts can make it difficult to process certain situations and build healthy relationships with people. There has been positive research about using respiration techniques and meditation applications to help people go into a relaxed state. However, the problem that people with ADHD face is not about how to calm down after situations, but how to stay presently calm when under duress. I am working on developing an effective relationship between respiration techniques and an interactive biofeedback game that obliges people to multitask playing the game and keeping a consistent deep breathing pattern as the game gets harder.

With a global pandemic going on, the idea of a remote research internship scared me at first. I had no idea how it could work or where I was going to be. Luckily, I have had a very supportive family and an amazing mentor who has gone above and beyond to make my research experience still happen this summer. I live in an apartment in Tuscaloosa, but it was not exactly ideal for me to stay there for the summer. Since my research was going to be remote and I would be spending the majority of time in my home at a desk, my dog would want even more attention from me everyday. Even though I have not lived at home for years, my best option was to come back home in Illinois where my parents could watch my dog for me throughout the day, giving me the time and space to get effective work done. I have been working with Dr. Short since the middle of May, and she has been an incredible person to work with and learn under. We talk about the research itself, but she also is teaching me ways on how to become a proficient researcher so I can be beyond prepared for when I do go to graduate school. We usually have a one-on-one zoom meeting on Wednesdays, a full lab zoom meeting on Tuesdays, and lab hacking hours on Fridays in GatherTown where we can connect with other students or professors. The lab hacking hours have been my favorite thing to do every week because Dr. Short invites other DREU students and other labs to our hacking hours so it can give us a chance to still network and meet new people. Virtual research is not exactly what I expected, but it has been beyond appreciable. I have had the opportunity to further my research passions, meet other students, and still be able to build a relationship with Dr. Short all while spending more genuine time with my family after being at college for years. I am very grateful to be a part of the DREU program this summer.

Over the last year, AccessComputing has been happy to invite several new partners to our team:

• Colleen��Lewis of CSTeachingTips.org. Colleen is��McGregor-Girand Associate Professor of Computer Science at Harvey Mudd College and moves to the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign (UIUC) this fall
• Ben Wiedermann, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Harvey Mudd College
• Elaine Shaertl Short,��Clare Boothe Luce Assistant Professor, in the Tufts University Department of Computer Science
• Lawrence Angrave, Teaching Professor of Computer Science at UIUC
• Emmanuel Schanzer, Co-Director of Bootstrap
• Cheryl Seals from the Institute for African-American Mentoring in Computing Sciences
• Cullen White from AnitaB.org
• Jamie Payton from STARS Alliance
  ��

We also have new representatives from some of our existing partners:

• Julian Brinkley, assistant professor of human-centered computing at Clemson University, joins Jim Martin in representing��Clemson.
• Kyle Keane, lecturer in materials science and engineering, joins Rob Miller in representing MIT.

Find our complete list of AccessComputing partners and representatives online.

Lauren Siegel graduated from North Carolina State University last month with bachelor’s degrees in computer science, political science, and economics.

Disability community and accessibility have always been important parts of Lauren’s life and education. As a first-year student, she co-founded an organization focused on running accessible LEGO robotics workshops for kids and teens in her hometown. During her junior year, Lauren attended the AccessComputing OurCS workshop at the ����ԭ��, where she had the opportunity to learn about accessible virtual reality and meet other Blind and low vision women in computing. Having the opportunity to both learn from other disabled women in computing, and put accessibility knowledge into practice were two major highlights of her college experience that kept her motivated and energized to stay in the computing field.

During her sophomore year, Lauren ran Diversity Education Week programming on Blindness and disability for the NC State community. While in her senior year, Lauren led a Birds of a Feather session on having a disability in computing at the Tapia Conference, and she spoke on a panel with fellow AccessComputing members, Naba Rizvi and Meenakshi Das, about navigating the tech industry with a disability at the Grace Hopper Conference. These experiences encouraged Lauren to continue incorporating disability community building and education as part of her career in tech.

Lauren was also involved in many on-campus activities. Some of the most impactful extracurricular and vocational experiences she had were being president of her university’s engineering and humanities dual-degree program, working as a Computer Science teaching assistant, holding leadership positions in Student Government, serving as an ambassador for the Department of Computer Science, and volunteering in multiple tech for good organizations. Through her multidisciplinary education and extracurriculars, Lauren developed an interest in tech public policy and data privacy.

After graduation, Lauren will be joining Google as a software engineer and hopes to attend graduate school for Computer Science and Public Policy.

At Microsoft’s annual Ability Summit in May 2020, ����ԭ�� President Ana Marie Cauce and Microsoft President Brad Smith announced the founding of CREATE, the UW Center for Research and Education on Accessible Technology and Experiences. CREATE was co-founded by UW faculty from multiple colleges, including center Co-Director Jacob O. Wobbrock (The Information School) and Director for Education Richard Ladner (Computer Science & Engineering), both from AccessComputing. Other founding faculty members are center Co-Director Jennifer Mankoff (Computer Science & Engineering), Director for Translation Anat Caspi (The Taskar Center), and Associate Directors Heather Feldner (Rehabilitation Medicine), Leah Findlater (Human-Centered Design & Engineering), James Fogarty (Computer Science & Engineering), Jon Froehlich (Computer Science & Engineering), and Kat Steele (Mechanical Engineering). Together, these nine faculty members successfully inspired Microsoft with the idea of starting a center devoted to the design, development, and deployment of next-generation accessible technologies. The center is also devoted to educating the next generation of designers, engineers, and I.T. specialists with the awareness and skills to ensure the technologies they create and manage are accessible. Microsoft generously agreed to fund CREATE with an inaugural gift of $2.5M. CREATE aims to raise an additional $7.5M from private donors, other companies, and grants, on its way to becoming a high-powered self-sustaining research center with global impact.

CREATE’s stated mission is “to make technology accessible and to make the world accessible through technology.” CREATE faculty pursue projects along both of these lines. For example, in the first line of work, Prof. Wobbrock was part of a team that helped make touch screens accessible by inventing Slide Rule, the world’s first finger-driven screen reader, in 2007. More recently, a research team including Profs. Richard Ladner, James Fogarty, and Wobbrock created GestureCalc, an eyes-free calculator for touch screens. In the second line of work, Prof. Jon Froehlich has created Project Sidewalk to use crowdsourcing and machine learning to gather and present outdoor navigation information, particularly the accessibility of sidewalks. Dr. Anat Caspi has a similar project called AccessMap, which provides personalized automated pedestrian routing. Prof. Jennifer Mankoff conducts research on consumer-grade fabrication technology, such as low-cost 3D printing, and how this technology can be used to meet do-it-yourself or do-for-others accessibility challenges. Professor Heather Feldner enables children with disabilities to explore the physical world through creative mobility support in her��Go Baby Go��project.��For these and many other projects, CREATE faculty are already internationally recognized for their contributions to assistive technology and accessible computing; by bringing them together under one organizational roof, CREATE will enable synergies and foster collaborations that enable faculty and students to become more than the sum of their parts.

CREATE is not only a research center, but also focuses on education and translation. With education, CREATE focuses on training the next generation of technology professionals to prioritize the creation of accessible technologies. CREATE’s founders are mostly engineers and the center’s education efforts will borrow heavily from engineering disciplines. With translation, CREATE focuses on ensuring the center’s research breakthroughs will find their way into the lives of people that can benefit from them. Translation opportunities might involve getting the latest research into companies, establishing licensing arrangements, forming open source projects, supporting do-it-yourself communities, or holding workshops for communicating best practices. Both education and translation will allow the work of CREATE faculty and students to have far-reaching impact for years to come.

CREATE is just getting started, but plans are underway to have students at every degree level involved in CREATE’s activities. CREATE founders are working hard to develop an industry affiliates program, technology demo days, a career fair, student scholarships, travel support, and even an endowed professorship, among other initiatives. CREATE also hopes to engage with advocacy on campus and beyond for people with disabilities and the importance of technology being accessible. For more information, please .

The fifth international conference on Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology () was scheduled to be held on March 11, 2020 in Portland, Oregon. Just a few days before the conference, the organizers decided to move the conference online. Though it was a stressful few days organizing such a large change right before the conference was to begin, they successfully did it. Kudos to the organizers for pulling this off.

Among the 31 papers presented at the conference were two about disability: "Why is Data on Disability So Hard to Collect and Understand" by Brianna Blaser and Richard Ladner and "Computer Science Principles for Teachers of Deaf Students" by Richard Ladner, Andreas Stefik, Jill Naumann, and Erin Peach. The proceedings of RESPECT 2020 will appear in IEEE Explore.��Other papers explored issues about equity and inclusion of women and underrepresented minorities in computing fields.��

COVID-19 has driven us all online, as most of us are now working, teaching, and meeting remotely. This makes us more dependent than ever on third party technology solutions and makes it more critical than ever that those solutions be accessible to all users. In moving our meetings, courses, and even major events such as conferences and commencement ceremonies from face-to-face to an online format, we're discovering that there are many vendors who have products and services that can help us to meet our needs.

Unfortunately, many of these products and services were not designed with accessibility in mind, and we discover – often too late – that the online activity or event we're organizing is not going to be accessible to participants who use screen readers or other assistive technologies, or are physically unable to use a mouse, or who depend on live captions or sign language interpreters.

Making technology products and services accessible requires knowledge of accessibility standards and careful planning early in the design process. Companies who do this well typically have entire teams dedicated to accessibility, and have integrated accessibility into their design, engineering, and quality assurance workflows. They have systems in place for training their new employees on accessibility. Accessibility is an important value within their corporate culture. This is not something that can happen overnight, when a customer suddenly realizes the product they've purchased is not accessible.

Given this, it is important to consider accessibility early in the procurement process. As soon as you realize you have a need for a particular technology solution, establish a goal of finding an accessible technology solution. This needs to be addressed at three stages in the procurement process, described below as three steps:

Step 1. Solicit accessibility information.

Whether your purchase goes through a formal process or is a relatively simple decision by a single individual, it is critical to ask about accessibility of the products you're considering. However, in doing so, don’t ask "Is your product accessible?" Instead, ask open-ended questions about how the vendor ensures their product is accessible. What is their approach to accessibility within their company?�� What assistive technologies do they test with, and who does the testing? What sort of training do their engineers receive on accessibility? Their responses will give you an indication as to whether the company truly understands accessibility and can be trusted to provide accessible solutions.

In asking for an accessible product, it is important to identify the accessibility standard you're trying to meet. The most common standard used for defining technology accessibility, particularly for web-based software applications, is the Word Wide Web Consortium's (WCAG). As of June 2020, WCAG 2.1 is the latest version. WCAG 2.1 is organized into principles, guidelines, and (at the deepest level) success criteria. Each success criterion is assigned a Level (A, AA, or AAA) which corresponds with the importance of that item for accessibility, combined with how difficult it is to implement. Most web or technology accessibility policies, and most legal resolutions and settlements in the United States, have agreed that Level AA is a reasonable target. To meet WCAG 2.1 at Level AA, a product would need to satisfy all Level A and AA success criteria.

Often vendors are asked to provide a (VPAT) as a standard means of documenting their conformance with accessibility standards. There are four different editions of the VPAT, based on different accessibility standards. If WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the standards you're trying to meet, the most appropriate VPAT edition for vendors to complete would be the WCAG edition, version 2.3 or higher (since earlier versions were based on earlier versions of WCAG).��

Step 2. Validate accessibility information received.��

It is important to understand that a VPAT is a vendor's self-report of their accessibility. Vendors that are new to accessibility typically do not have adequate technical expertise to accurately assess their products’ accessibility. Those that do have the expertise sometimes provide VPATs that are prepared with product marketing as a primary goal, rather than transparency. ��Therefore, vendors’ claims should be independently verified and not accepted at face value. The more credible VPATs are those conducted by independent accessibility consultants.

VPATs, or any other documentation received, should not be perceived as the final answer for whether a product is accessible. Rather, VPATs provide a good starting point for a thorough discussion with the vendor about their accessibility.�� If their VPAT claims they support each of the WCAG 2.1 success criteria, ask them to explain. For example, given a particular critical function of the software, how does a person perform that function without a mouse?�� If their VPAT acknowledges they have accessibility problems, this is actually good because it reveals that an accessibility assessment has taken place, and the findings are being reported with some transparency. Your next questions should be: What is the impact of the known problems?�� Do they prevent particular groups of users from using the product at all, or do they make a few minor functions of the product more difficult?

Validating a product's accessibility can be challenging without knowledge and skills in technology accessibility. This is why it's important, as described above, to determine whether the company seems to be committed to accessibility and has taken observable action to integrate accessibility into their workflows and culture. For understanding the finer details of a product's accessibility, you may need to solicit help from someone with expertise in technology accessibility.�� Most colleges and universities have a dedicated staff person or department serving this function. If you aren't sure, contact your disability services office. At the ����ԭ��, the central IT organization (UW-IT) has an entire department (Accessible Technology Services) that can help UW faculty and staff with reviewing VPATs and evaluating products (I'm manager of the IT Accessibility Team within that department).

Step 3. Include accessibility assurances in contracts.��

After discussing accessibility issues with a vendor, the contract you sign should include language that specifically addresses expectations around accessibility. With no accessibility requirements built into your contracts, you have little if any leverage when you discover the product you've purchased is inaccessible.

To earn your business, a company should be willing to provide a roadmap with a prioritized list of accessibility issues and a timeline for addressing each issue. Then, your contract with them should include language that requires them to make satisfactory progress on their roadmap, with penalties built in for failing to do so.

Even if the product already meets your accessibility standards, the contract should include language that assures continued accessibility as the product is updated. This is especially important for products that are developed on an ongoing rapid release cycle.

At the UW, we include an (in PDF) among our for contracts and purchases. Feel free to use this as a starting point for developing language for your own contracts.

��

Below are the articles of the AccessComputing News July 2020 newsletter. These articles can also be seen all on one page at the Full Newsletter option.