WEBVTT

1
00:00:23.820 --> 00:00:24.480
Katherine (ARL): Hey!

2
00:00:26.660 --> 00:00:27.180
Katherine (ARL): Hello!

3
00:00:27.180 --> 00:00:27.870
Hana Levay: Hello!

4
00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:30.409
Katherine (ARL): Everyone's trickling in

5
00:00:40.170 --> 00:00:41.170
Katherine (ARL): weird.

6
00:01:29.020 --> 00:01:31.274
Katherine (ARL): Did anyone get a prompt for

7
00:01:34.057 --> 00:01:36.440
Katherine (ARL): Did you need to enter a passcode? Sorry.

8
00:01:37.490 --> 00:01:38.590
Katherine (ARL): Okay.

9
00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:57.540
Katherine (ARL): one of our speakers

10
00:01:58.150 --> 00:02:00.340
Katherine (ARL): is in a weird limbo.

11
00:03:17.190 --> 00:03:18.470
Katherine (ARL): I think we're good. Okay.

12
00:03:21.290 --> 00:03:22.490
Katherine (ARL): yay.

13
00:03:35.630 --> 00:03:45.734
Katherine (ARL): like folks are tricking in from the waiting room, which is great. You should have gotten the notice that we're recording. I'll say more about that before we dive in.

14
00:03:47.890 --> 00:03:51.875
Katherine (ARL): I think we'll get started on time, because we have a lot to cover

15
00:03:54.390 --> 00:03:55.240
Katherine (ARL): me.

16
00:04:42.840 --> 00:04:46.369
Katherine (ARL): alright. Welcome everyone. I'm just keeping an eye on the waiting room and

17
00:04:46.650 --> 00:04:48.449
Katherine (ARL): all the various things

18
00:04:51.420 --> 00:04:53.980
Katherine (ARL): comes a Canadian colleague, that's exciting.

19
00:05:09.210 --> 00:05:13.371
Katherine (ARL): Alright, I think we'll get into it. I'll continue to.

20
00:05:14.320 --> 00:05:18.969
Katherine (ARL): admit folks into the waiting room

21
00:05:19.940 --> 00:05:21.050
Katherine (ARL): as we go.

22
00:05:21.610 --> 00:05:28.099
Katherine (ARL): So yeah, thanks everyone for being here and of course, thanks to our speakers as well.

23
00:05:28.455 --> 00:05:51.564
Katherine (ARL): I'm Katherine Klosek, Arl's director of information policy and Federal relations. I wanna note up top that you should have gotten the notification that we're recording this. This session. And we're also going to try to capture the transcript as well. Because we know that there have been there's probably gonna be questions and and whatnot in the chat.

24
00:05:52.266 --> 00:06:20.459
Katherine (ARL): And I guess that's a a suggestion to add your questions to the chat as we as we kind of go along here. I just want to acknowledge that there have been a lot of conversations in the Research Library community. Around in the library community in general. Around title 2, and so just want to acknowledge. The American Library Association Library, Publishing Coalition Library Accessibility Alliance and Big 10 Academic Alliance. As just some of the organizations that have been focused on this

25
00:06:20.460 --> 00:06:30.480
Katherine (ARL): and we've linked to some of their resources and webinars in in this sort of preview, Doc, that we put together, which I'm going to share in the chat right now.

26
00:06:31.255 --> 00:06:42.568
Katherine (ARL): You can follow along in this document. I think we might update it after this conversation, and then we'll make sure that everyone has has access to it as well. And so yeah, I think,

27
00:06:44.926 --> 00:06:47.410
Katherine (ARL): yeah, I think that. Sorry.

28
00:06:47.420 --> 00:07:05.350
Katherine (ARL): I'm still admitting folks. Okay, yeah, I think. With that I'm going to kick it off. To Liz Lorang to please say a few words of welcome in her capacity. As vta liaison to the library accessibility Alliance. So, Liz, you have the floor.

29
00:07:05.640 --> 00:07:28.490
Liz Lorang: Great. Well, good afternoon, everyone from Lincoln, Nebraska. I'm Liz Lorang, Dean of Libraries at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and I, as Catherine said. I also serve as the representative from the Big 10 Academic Alliance Library Directors Group to the Library Accessibility Alliance. I think it's important for me to say that I volunteered for that position

30
00:07:28.490 --> 00:07:49.120
Liz Lorang: just recently and specifically, so that I can learn more about the laas work and accessibility efforts more broadly in both academic and research libraries. So I am not here today as an expert, but certainly as a fellow learner. But I've taken my task today to be really mood setting for the session.

31
00:07:49.310 --> 00:08:18.189
Liz Lorang: and I won't talk long, but I do when I get to mood setting. Need you to stick with me for a couple of minutes, because the mood I sketch at the outset is not where we will end, I promise. But 1st I want to thank the Association of Research libraries, especially Catherine Klosick, for organizing this opportunity and for bringing together both breadth and depth of expertise, as we all look to uphold principles of accessibility in our organizations and respond to Ada title Ii. Requirements.

32
00:08:18.410 --> 00:08:20.770
Liz Lorang: Now for a little bit of mood, setting

33
00:08:21.160 --> 00:08:49.499
Liz Lorang: in a piece of speculative fiction that is part of her work staying with the trouble. Donna Haraway looks back on our present era of history from a time in the future, and describes it as quote the great dithering. So in the great dithering people were well aware of the major and existential threats to the planet and to living well. But they didn't bring themselves to action. They dithered about until the time for productive action had passed.

34
00:08:49.640 --> 00:08:57.449
Liz Lorang: Unfortunately, we're probably, or perhaps even closer to a great dithering now than when Haraway wrote nearly a decade ago.

35
00:08:57.550 --> 00:09:23.269
Liz Lorang: and a great dithering might occur, because no solution appears ideologically pure enough, or does not address every facet of a problem. A great dithering might also occur, because people feel overwhelmed by the scope and scale of the problem. A great dithering might also occur, because those with power to act decide that they're actually fine with the status quo because it's working for them

36
00:09:23.270 --> 00:09:31.390
Liz Lorang: others and the future be damned. So Harroway's great dithering actually represented a convergence of these forces.

37
00:09:31.780 --> 00:09:55.090
Liz Lorang: In my own experience we in academic research libraries can find ourselves hung up as a result of 2 of those forces. When a solution does not appear ideologically pure enough, or is not fully comprehensive enough, or when we focus on all that can and perhaps even should be done, and then we begin to feel a sense of overwhelm set in.

38
00:09:55.360 --> 00:10:18.569
Liz Lorang: So in my organization, I've already sensed some of these responses around efforts to respond to title 2, and this is not a criticism by any means, of anyone in my library or in the profession. The work is hard, the work is real. We have a lot to do, but we do have an opportunity for collective self reflection and recalibration towards action.

39
00:10:18.780 --> 00:10:43.300
Liz Lorang: Here's where the mood begins to shift. So wherever we're starting from as individuals or organizations and responding to title 2 or wherever we are in our journey. Today's session is designed to encourage us toward a mood of uplift, of possibility and of agency, and to understand and respond to title 2 as an opportunity to more fully lean into our values as information professionals.

40
00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:54.240
Liz Lorang: and to make time and space for work that we already value, and sometimes have struggled to make time and space. For, amidst all of our other commitments and obligations.

41
00:10:54.320 --> 00:11:13.070
Liz Lorang: atmosphere and mood are vital, and they also only go so far. So our experts today also will share questions, frameworks, and resources as well as paths for strategizing and prioritizing our efforts and to understand and appreciate the roles of both humans and technology in our responses to title 2.

42
00:11:13.330 --> 00:11:38.170
Liz Lorang: So with this mood setting welcome and framing. It's my pleasure to turn the reins over to today's moderator, Blake Reid, who is an associate professor in the College of law at the University of Colorado. Professor Reid focuses on telecommunications, Internet copyright and disability law, and he brings expertise both from prior experience in legal practice as well as his experience in legal research and teaching.

43
00:11:38.340 --> 00:11:41.040
Liz Lorang: Welcome everyone, Blake, over to you.

44
00:11:41.570 --> 00:11:44.299
Blake Reid: Thanks so much, Liz. Can you hear me? Okay.

45
00:11:45.130 --> 00:12:09.970
Blake Reid: all right, I see, nodding all around. I will go with that. Well, it is lovely to be here with you all today, and great to see so many old friends and and hopefully new ones. And one of the reasons that I agreed to moderate this session. Having spent a lot of time on the accessibility of technology and content in my

46
00:12:09.970 --> 00:12:34.620
Blake Reid: careers, I can't think of a better group of folks to get together, to talk about the incredibly important challenges and opportunities that this moment presents to bring libraries to a more accessible place and make them a center of equity, as they always

47
00:12:34.620 --> 00:12:58.209
Blake Reid: have been for for all patrons. So it is my role as moderator today to walk us through. So this is probably the most you're gonna hear from me for a little while. Our agenda. We're gonna start with an overview of the the regulations and then dive down into some of the kind of thorny specific

48
00:12:58.210 --> 00:13:23.079
Blake Reid: questions that have have come up and hear from several experts on that we'll shift over to a conversation about the licensing of accessible content. And then this is where everyone else comes in. We will shift to a discussion with all of the speakers. So as we go along, please feel free to

49
00:13:23.080 --> 00:13:48.030
Blake Reid: your questions. In the chat. We've got a fantastic crew of folks who are going to be monitoring the chat, including Jonathan Band, Arl's Copyright Council, Brandon Butler, the Executive Director of the Recreate Coalition, Rachel Sandberg, who's the Director of Scholarly Communication and Information policy at the University of California, at Berkeley, and Nancy Sims, the director of copyright and scholarly communication

50
00:13:48.030 --> 00:14:12.929
Blake Reid: at the University of Minnesota libraries. They'll be monitoring the chat, as will I to the extent that you've got very specific questions, they will try and pick up on them to the extent you've got overarching questions. We'll try and bring them into the discussion as we go, and we'll have lots of opportunities at that point to discuss, and then we'll we'll close out with some next steps. All right, let's get into it.

51
00:14:12.930 --> 00:14:24.719
Blake Reid: I'm pleased to hand it over to Nancy Horton, the associate director of the Mid Atlantic, Ada Center, and Nancy is going to give us an overview of the new title. Ii. Regulations Nancy, over to you.

52
00:14:26.040 --> 00:14:39.430
Nancy Horton: Thank you so much. Thank you. Everyone for for having me here today. As Blake said, I am. My name is Nancy Horton. I'm with the Mid Atlantic Americans with Disabilities Act Center. And I'm gonna

53
00:14:39.450 --> 00:14:50.339
Nancy Horton: just give a very brief kind of 10,000 foot view overview of the new of the new rule, and I'm I have a few slides to share.

54
00:14:51.340 --> 00:14:54.159
Nancy Horton: So I'm going to attempt to do that.

55
00:14:57.500 --> 00:15:00.320
Nancy Horton: I hope everyone is able to to see that.

56
00:15:01.470 --> 00:15:04.810
Katherine (ARL): We can see them. It looks like it's not in present. Yep, you're good. Thanks, Nancy.

57
00:15:04.810 --> 00:15:05.855
Nancy Horton: Okay?

58
00:15:08.070 --> 00:15:20.739
Nancy Horton: again, I'm going to give just a brief overview. This is the name of the new rule, nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities.

59
00:15:21.454 --> 00:15:25.730
Nancy Horton: Otherwise known as public entities in Ada Land.

60
00:15:28.380 --> 00:15:43.360
Nancy Horton: The mid Atlantic. Ada Center is one of 10 regional Ada centers located all around the country. So if you are in the United States, or one of its territories, or the District of Columbia. You have an Ada Center

61
00:15:43.510 --> 00:15:45.899
Nancy Horton: that serves your your area.

62
00:15:47.240 --> 00:16:00.470
Nancy Horton: This is some information I have to tell everybody to acknowledge that the Ada centers are funded by the National Institute on Disability, independent Living and Rehabilitation Research.

63
00:16:00.920 --> 00:16:05.950
Nancy Horton: And that we're not nothing we're saying is legal advice.

64
00:16:07.390 --> 00:16:13.399
Nancy Horton: So again, I'm going to give a brief overview of the new rule. We're going to talk about how it applies.

65
00:16:13.560 --> 00:16:18.470
Nancy Horton: The compliance dates for the entities that are covered. Under this rule.

66
00:16:19.115 --> 00:16:25.120
Nancy Horton: The technical standards that have now been established to measure compliance

67
00:16:25.720 --> 00:16:33.160
Nancy Horton: and sort of put, try to put that into the framework of Title 2,

68
00:16:33.570 --> 00:16:43.740
Nancy Horton: which has been around for nearly 35 years at this point, and so we'll touch on some of the the core concepts of of Title 2.

69
00:16:43.880 --> 00:16:47.100
Nancy Horton: Where this new rule, you know, lives.

70
00:16:49.870 --> 00:16:51.589
Nancy Horton: So 1st of all, the the

71
00:16:51.710 --> 00:16:54.970
Nancy Horton: the basic rule, you know, title 2 of the Ada

72
00:16:54.980 --> 00:17:01.929
Nancy Horton: applies to all programs, services, and activities of state and local governments.

73
00:17:02.600 --> 00:17:08.379
Nancy Horton: So the new rule does a couple things. It adds a whole new subpart subpart H

74
00:17:08.770 --> 00:17:15.150
Nancy Horton: to the regulation, which is at 28 Cfr. That's the code of Federal regulations.

75
00:17:15.170 --> 00:17:16.879
Nancy Horton: Part 35.

76
00:17:17.520 --> 00:17:21.769
Nancy Horton: To ensure access for people with disabilities to web content

77
00:17:22.020 --> 00:17:31.679
Nancy Horton: and mobile apps that are made available either directly or through contracts, licenses, or other arrangements.

78
00:17:32.297 --> 00:17:47.299
Nancy Horton: Because many public entities do hire contractors and so forth to conduct their programs on their behalf, or engage in activities or provide them with things like web content.

79
00:17:50.130 --> 00:17:57.529
Nancy Horton: So 1st of all, compliance dates which are important for covered entities.

80
00:17:57.580 --> 00:18:02.799
Nancy Horton: this time is is laid out in the rule

81
00:18:02.810 --> 00:18:06.969
Nancy Horton: to give covered entities time to prepare

82
00:18:07.310 --> 00:18:09.459
Nancy Horton: to implement the rule.

83
00:18:09.910 --> 00:18:21.790
Nancy Horton: So for most entities, most state and local government agencies, it's going to go by the population of the entity. It might be a State, if it's, say, a State University

84
00:18:21.880 --> 00:18:24.950
Nancy Horton: system or State department of something

85
00:18:25.140 --> 00:18:27.590
Nancy Horton: or county or city.

86
00:18:28.470 --> 00:18:32.729
Nancy Horton: those with total population. That's total population

87
00:18:33.010 --> 00:18:39.749
Nancy Horton: of 50,000 or more. The compliance date is April 24, th of 2,026.

88
00:18:39.840 --> 00:18:41.869
Nancy Horton: So it's 2 years

89
00:18:42.500 --> 00:18:46.079
Nancy Horton: from the date of the rule, the date, the rule

90
00:18:46.570 --> 00:18:47.630
Nancy Horton: was issued

91
00:18:47.690 --> 00:18:56.499
Nancy Horton: for smaller entities. Up to 49,999 total population. They get they get a little more time.

92
00:18:57.252 --> 00:19:04.650
Nancy Horton: They get about another another year, April 26, th I think they gave them us the Sunday off, or something there.

93
00:19:05.525 --> 00:19:07.780
Nancy Horton: Of 2,027

94
00:19:07.880 --> 00:19:10.689
Nancy Horton: will be the compliance date for those smaller

95
00:19:10.820 --> 00:19:35.530
Nancy Horton: entities, and that is the compliance state as well for special district governments which are public entities. They're not counties or towns or independent school districts, but they're but they are public entities that are authorized under State law usually to provide a specific or a limited number of specific functions.

96
00:19:35.860 --> 00:19:39.570
Nancy Horton: and and they have sufficient autonomy to sort of

97
00:19:39.600 --> 00:19:43.709
Nancy Horton: qualify as a separate government entity.

98
00:19:43.730 --> 00:19:45.210
Nancy Horton: And they? They don't have a

99
00:19:45.320 --> 00:19:46.630
Nancy Horton: a population

100
00:19:46.690 --> 00:19:50.029
Nancy Horton: calculation. These are sometimes things like

101
00:19:50.180 --> 00:19:51.810
Nancy Horton: a water and sewer

102
00:19:52.550 --> 00:19:55.360
Nancy Horton: authority, or or something of that nature.

103
00:19:56.610 --> 00:19:58.899
Nancy Horton: So for other entities

104
00:19:59.370 --> 00:20:14.050
Nancy Horton: on on the next slide. Here. This is the definition of how these other entities will figure out their compliance date. Total population is based on calculated estimates from the Us. Census bureau.

105
00:20:14.780 --> 00:20:20.449
Nancy Horton: So if an entity has that kind of a population estimate.

106
00:20:20.710 --> 00:20:24.399
Nancy Horton: they're going to go by the most recent decennial census

107
00:20:25.790 --> 00:20:37.980
Nancy Horton: for independent school districts or instrumentalities of independent school districts. They're going to go by the most recent small area income and poverty estimates.

108
00:20:39.020 --> 00:20:45.960
Nancy Horton: Now, if there are entities other than special district governments or independent school districts which we just

109
00:20:46.180 --> 00:20:48.399
Nancy Horton: saw, where they where they fit

110
00:20:49.914 --> 00:20:53.000
Nancy Horton: and they don't have a population

111
00:20:53.230 --> 00:20:58.230
Nancy Horton: estimate, but they are an instrumentality or a commuter authority

112
00:20:58.500 --> 00:21:18.949
Nancy Horton: of one or more state or local governments that do have a population estimate, then the those entities will go by that will go by that population estimate to figure out where their compliance date is. The earlier date, which is typically for the larger entities or the the later date for smaller entities.

113
00:21:19.410 --> 00:21:26.730
Nancy Horton: So now that we know who we are and what we're looking at. What are we looking at in terms of what we need to

114
00:21:27.110 --> 00:21:37.050
Nancy Horton: to comply with specifically this, this rule, this is something really important about this rule is that it adopts and establishes a technical standard

115
00:21:37.380 --> 00:21:43.020
Nancy Horton: which is the web content accessibility. Guidelines often referred to as Wcag

116
00:21:43.500 --> 00:21:47.330
Nancy Horton: 2.1. This is the 2,018

117
00:21:47.380 --> 00:21:50.480
Nancy Horton: version level double A,

118
00:21:50.520 --> 00:21:55.279
Nancy Horton: that is the technical standard that we'll be using is sort of the yardstick

119
00:21:55.520 --> 00:22:01.012
Nancy Horton: to measure what accessibility really looks like in the online environment. This

120
00:22:01.660 --> 00:22:14.470
Nancy Horton: the the Wcag is is the result. It's an international guideline is established under the web accessibility, initiative, or wai, which is part of the world, wide web consortium

121
00:22:14.580 --> 00:22:27.499
Nancy Horton: or W. 3 C. And I've got a screenshot here of their website. This is an absolutely fabulous resource for just about anyone of any type of level of interest.

122
00:22:28.171 --> 00:22:31.059
Nancy Horton: When it comes to web accessibility.

123
00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:39.210
Nancy Horton: So web content of of these state and local government entities needs to comply

124
00:22:39.300 --> 00:22:42.779
Nancy Horton: with this technical standard, unless

125
00:22:43.080 --> 00:22:51.980
Nancy Horton: compliance would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program service or activity

126
00:22:52.460 --> 00:22:57.630
Nancy Horton: or create cause undue financial and administrative burdens.

127
00:22:57.780 --> 00:23:00.269
Nancy Horton: And these are some very basic

128
00:23:00.981 --> 00:23:05.150
Nancy Horton: limitations of Title 2 they've been entitled to

129
00:23:05.190 --> 00:23:15.089
Nancy Horton: since day one. This isn't something new about this rule. These are limitations that have always been entitled to and are available for pretty much any

130
00:23:15.620 --> 00:23:17.322
Nancy Horton: of title two's

131
00:23:17.970 --> 00:23:19.190
Nancy Horton: requirements.

132
00:23:20.480 --> 00:23:22.350
Nancy Horton: So on our next slide.

133
00:23:22.740 --> 00:23:35.610
Nancy Horton: in addition to those sort of very basic limitations, we have some specific exceptions to the new rule. We have 5 specific exceptions. One is for archived web content.

134
00:23:35.630 --> 00:23:38.820
Nancy Horton: And there's a 4 part definition of what that

135
00:23:38.890 --> 00:23:40.050
Nancy Horton: means.

136
00:23:40.110 --> 00:23:43.040
Nancy Horton: Down at the bottom of this slide I've placed

137
00:23:43.110 --> 00:23:45.210
Nancy Horton: the definition of web content.

138
00:23:45.730 --> 00:23:50.099
Nancy Horton: you know, again, just to make sure, in case there's anybody in the room who doesn't know what the web is.

139
00:23:50.340 --> 00:23:56.560
Nancy Horton: I think we all pretty much know what web content is, but it's it's the stuff that's there. The information and

140
00:23:56.570 --> 00:24:09.930
Nancy Horton: sensory experience that's intended to be communicated to us users out here in the world, including the code and the markup that's under the hood there that defines the structure and

141
00:24:09.980 --> 00:24:21.810
Nancy Horton: presentation and interaction of the content. Some examples, text images, sounds, videos, controls, animations, conventional electronic documents.

142
00:24:22.160 --> 00:24:24.220
Nancy Horton: So you know the stuff that's there.

143
00:24:24.380 --> 00:24:25.330
Nancy Horton: So

144
00:24:25.620 --> 00:24:40.919
Nancy Horton: any of this that meets this, all 4 parts of this 4 part definition would would come under this 1st exception. It's created before the date the public entities required to comply with this new rule.

145
00:24:40.950 --> 00:24:48.819
Nancy Horton: or reproduces paper documents or the contents of other physical media created before the compliance date.

146
00:24:48.950 --> 00:24:54.139
Nancy Horton: So that could be old photographs that you scanned or things of that nature.

147
00:24:54.990 --> 00:25:00.509
Nancy Horton: It's retained exclusively for reference research or record record keeping.

148
00:25:01.400 --> 00:25:05.910
Nancy Horton: It is not altered or updated after the date. It's archived

149
00:25:05.930 --> 00:25:12.969
Nancy Horton: and it's organized and stored in a dedicated area that's clearly identified as an archive.

150
00:25:14.590 --> 00:25:22.760
Nancy Horton: So exception number 2 is for pre-existing conventional electronic documents.

151
00:25:22.980 --> 00:25:32.360
Nancy Horton: And again down below. I've put the definition of what that is, conventional electronic documents. And this is a definition that's not.

152
00:25:32.500 --> 00:25:35.130
Nancy Horton: These are. This is not a list of examples.

153
00:25:35.390 --> 00:25:38.699
Nancy Horton: This is it. This is what this is, all

154
00:25:38.870 --> 00:25:49.579
Nancy Horton: that conventional electronic documents are. They're they're Pdfs, portable document formats or their documents. In a word, processor presentation or spreadsheet

155
00:25:49.680 --> 00:25:53.729
Nancy Horton: format. You know your word documents. Powerpoint excel

156
00:25:53.750 --> 00:25:55.290
Nancy Horton: things of that nature.

157
00:25:55.540 --> 00:26:10.499
Nancy Horton: Pre existing documents like this fall under an exception, unless they are currently used to apply for gain access to or participate in a public entities.

158
00:26:10.650 --> 00:26:13.119
Nancy Horton: services, programs, or activities.

159
00:26:13.830 --> 00:26:15.680
Nancy Horton: Now, these are the last 3

160
00:26:15.980 --> 00:26:20.480
Nancy Horton: of the 5 exceptions. I've put them all together. They're fairly straightforward.

161
00:26:20.520 --> 00:26:22.799
Nancy Horton: The 3rd exception is content

162
00:26:22.820 --> 00:26:31.530
Nancy Horton: posted by a 3rd party, unless it's posted due to a contractual licensing or or other arrangement with the public

163
00:26:31.650 --> 00:26:44.910
Nancy Horton: entity. Again, this is this recognizes something that's been part of title 2 from from the beginning. If a state or local government agency, you know, hires a contractor

164
00:26:44.980 --> 00:26:49.340
Nancy Horton: to build its website just like if they hire a contractor to build their building.

165
00:26:49.770 --> 00:26:55.060
Nancy Horton: the public entity is still responsible for that. But they're not responsible

166
00:26:55.260 --> 00:27:03.270
Nancy Horton: for the things that 3rd parties that they're not responsible for not affiliated with.

167
00:27:03.825 --> 00:27:08.449
Nancy Horton: May post on their social media site, or something of that nature.

168
00:27:08.510 --> 00:27:13.799
Nancy Horton: or a resource that they might link to that's outside of their own.

169
00:27:14.170 --> 00:27:17.969
Nancy Horton: their own responsibility. Things of that nature also.

170
00:27:18.100 --> 00:27:28.439
Nancy Horton: The 4th exception is individualized, conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property or their account.

171
00:27:28.770 --> 00:27:31.329
Nancy Horton: and is password protected

172
00:27:31.460 --> 00:27:35.640
Nancy Horton: or otherwise secured. So this might be an individual's

173
00:27:35.750 --> 00:27:36.620
Nancy Horton: bill.

174
00:27:36.890 --> 00:27:40.279
Nancy Horton: or something like that, where they only they would have

175
00:27:40.610 --> 00:27:41.850
Nancy Horton: access to that.

176
00:27:42.010 --> 00:27:47.070
Nancy Horton: And the final exception is for pre-existing social media

177
00:27:47.110 --> 00:27:49.470
Nancy Horton: posts. Again, pre-existing meaning

178
00:27:49.580 --> 00:27:51.690
Nancy Horton: before the compliance date

179
00:27:52.260 --> 00:27:56.190
Nancy Horton: that the the public entity is is subject to.

180
00:27:58.050 --> 00:28:05.808
Nancy Horton: Now there is an additional allowance for conforming alternate

181
00:28:06.930 --> 00:28:09.759
Nancy Horton: alternate ways to make web content

182
00:28:10.460 --> 00:28:23.439
Nancy Horton: accessible. This is allowed only when it's not possible to make web content accessible, due to technical or legal limitations. So this would be where you would have a separate

183
00:28:23.450 --> 00:28:26.066
Nancy Horton: web page or a separate

184
00:28:27.535 --> 00:28:28.750
Nancy Horton: You know, content

185
00:28:29.462 --> 00:28:40.630
Nancy Horton: to try to give that, give that information, make it available to people with disabilities, the content needs to be comparable to the inaccessible content that it's sort of duplicating

186
00:28:40.960 --> 00:28:46.529
Nancy Horton: in terms of the information and the functions that are available to people to do

187
00:28:46.800 --> 00:28:48.900
Nancy Horton: it needs to be kept up to date.

188
00:28:48.920 --> 00:28:59.350
Nancy Horton: This this, like the the inaccessible version, and it needs to be easy to find needs to be easy for people to find it and and access it. So this is a sort of a narrow

189
00:28:59.580 --> 00:29:02.860
Nancy Horton: allowance. It's a little bit different from

190
00:29:03.250 --> 00:29:07.299
Nancy Horton: the the exceptions that we sort of just looked over

191
00:29:08.490 --> 00:29:32.300
Nancy Horton: so. And this is just sort of this is a quote here from the Department of Justice's rulemaking. This is from the section of the regulation. They always provide guidance and background information on their rules, which is a lot of great information you can always find in these guidance and section by section analyses

192
00:29:32.770 --> 00:29:34.589
Nancy Horton: in in Federal

193
00:29:34.730 --> 00:29:38.300
Nancy Horton: rulemaking. And it's just a quote where

194
00:29:38.690 --> 00:29:42.759
Nancy Horton: the Department of Justice wants to emphasize that

195
00:29:43.010 --> 00:29:47.330
Nancy Horton: even if you've got web content or something that

196
00:29:48.220 --> 00:29:56.920
Nancy Horton: is, is accepted from having to meet the standards because the department wants covered entities to focus on

197
00:29:57.160 --> 00:29:58.530
Nancy Horton: new stuff

198
00:29:58.780 --> 00:30:03.789
Nancy Horton: and important stuff stuff that's currently needed currently used

199
00:30:04.483 --> 00:30:12.910
Nancy Horton: but even if something is accepted, then you still have those overarching obligations that we find in Title 2

200
00:30:12.940 --> 00:30:14.590
Nancy Horton: to ensure equity

201
00:30:14.630 --> 00:30:21.719
Nancy Horton: for people with disabilities and to respond to individuals on an individualized basis. So you may need to make

202
00:30:22.130 --> 00:30:26.349
Nancy Horton: an electronic document that's eligible for an exception.

203
00:30:26.440 --> 00:30:37.589
Nancy Horton: You may need to make that accessible or provide the information or the functionality in a in it on an individual basis if requested if needed.

204
00:30:39.820 --> 00:30:51.330
Nancy Horton: So again, that's a very quick trot through through this new rule. There's a lot of nuance. There's a lot more to it, but I'm hoping that at least gets us all on the same

205
00:30:51.480 --> 00:30:57.520
Nancy Horton: page. And again, just to remind folks the Ada National Network is nationwide.

206
00:30:57.530 --> 00:31:00.620
Nancy Horton: I'm here in the mid Atlantic region.

207
00:31:01.254 --> 00:31:06.869
Nancy Horton: But again, there are centers all over the country. You can reach your regional center.

208
00:31:06.970 --> 00:31:21.209
Nancy Horton: 809-49-4232. This is a nationwide number that works based on the area code of the phone number that you call from that's going to connect you to the region that's associated with that

209
00:31:21.700 --> 00:31:23.160
Nancy Horton: with that center.

210
00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:32.990
Nancy Horton: So with that, I'm going to stop sharing and turn things back over so that folks can get into the into the discussion that that folks want to have today.

211
00:31:34.170 --> 00:31:57.800
Blake Reid: Thanks so much, Nancy. That was a terrific overview, and I think we'll have those slides available for folks that want to review them later. It is now my pleasure to shift over to some of the thorny details of the regulations you just marched through, and in the spirit of the mood shift that happened at the beginning. I think we're gonna start

212
00:31:57.800 --> 00:32:14.550
Blake Reid: with something that might be a little bit scary, but then we'll start to answer some questions and to scare us a little bit. But only a little bit is Hannah Lavey, who's a collection assessment librarian at the University of Washington. Hannah, I turn it over to you.

213
00:32:14.910 --> 00:32:15.930
Hana Levay: Thanks. Blake.

214
00:32:17.070 --> 00:32:40.800
Hana Levay: yeah, I do have some big questions that I've seen surfaced in various conversations about this topic recently. And I do have a general sense that we're all a little scared. You know, librarians are traditionally committed to providing access to information to everyone, including people with disabilities, and I like to think, as a profession, we've been forward thinking about addressing accessibility already.

215
00:32:40.900 --> 00:32:43.800
Hana Levay: but the new ruling has definitely gotten us nervous.

216
00:32:44.236 --> 00:32:50.240
Hana Levay: You know. We tend to rely on standards and systems for doing our work, and we don't really have

217
00:32:50.350 --> 00:32:54.319
Hana Levay: examples yet of how to address the new ruling

218
00:32:54.680 --> 00:32:59.959
Hana Levay: and examples that we found in the documentation around the ruling don't really match up to our

219
00:32:59.970 --> 00:33:05.239
Hana Levay: actual libraries environment. So I wanted to list out a few scenarios

220
00:33:05.330 --> 00:33:11.050
Hana Levay: that have come up in these conversations. As questions. So

221
00:33:11.780 --> 00:33:21.741
Hana Levay: 3rd party, electronic resources is a big one. I do work with this myself, I try to figure out if our resources are accessible.

222
00:33:22.772 --> 00:33:30.310
Hana Levay: And we have no control over these or 3rd parties. So how do we influence them to make their products accessible.

223
00:33:31.050 --> 00:33:33.950
Hana Levay: Some of us have hundreds of subscriptions.

224
00:33:34.620 --> 00:33:39.550
Hana Levay: So it's a challenge, just 1st of all, to find out which ones are not accessible.

225
00:33:40.226 --> 00:33:46.620
Hana Levay: At University of Washington. We do this usability based keyboard navigation test to kind of filter out

226
00:33:47.060 --> 00:33:51.389
Hana Levay: the worst offenders. And then we look at their vpats or acrs.

227
00:33:51.600 --> 00:33:57.800
Hana Levay: But it's still not a full picture. B. Pets are often

228
00:33:58.368 --> 00:34:05.741
Hana Levay: unreliable, or maybe just the vendors don't know what they're doing, even sometimes when they're filling them out. So

229
00:34:06.180 --> 00:34:16.369
Hana Levay: that's a big question, how do we? How do we find those inaccessible products? And then how do we address the vendors with license language? Indemnification clauses?

230
00:34:16.899 --> 00:34:22.650
Hana Levay: And then we have extra challenges. If they're foreign vendors who might not be familiar with our laws.

231
00:34:23.005 --> 00:34:28.050
Hana Levay: We might have products. We don't have a direct license. So we don't really have any

232
00:34:28.469 --> 00:34:30.920
Hana Levay: power in those conversations.

233
00:34:31.543 --> 00:34:37.360
Hana Levay: And then sometimes we have these products that are unique and have no alternatives that are accessible. So

234
00:34:37.520 --> 00:34:47.399
Hana Levay: we don't really have the option to cancel those resources, because that would be you know, fundamental alteration of our essential services, as they say in the

235
00:34:47.620 --> 00:34:49.179
Hana Levay: accessibility language.

236
00:34:49.898 --> 00:34:51.691
Hana Levay: So that's a big one.

237
00:34:52.449 --> 00:35:03.069
Hana Levay: Another issue we have is for institutional repositories, where we have documents stored on our local library sites. And while we have a lot more control over these

238
00:35:03.611 --> 00:35:08.069
Hana Levay: there's a lot of content in there years and years of documents

239
00:35:09.170 --> 00:35:15.016
Hana Levay: does this fall under the archive web content exception? There's a lot of steps in that exception.

240
00:35:16.300 --> 00:35:20.560
Hana Levay: How do we know which of those documents we need to remediate?

241
00:35:21.010 --> 00:35:30.629
Hana Levay: And then, as it even if it does fall under the exception how do we know which items are gonna be used in order to remediate those 1st before

242
00:35:31.450 --> 00:35:34.276
Hana Levay: before they get used. That's probably impossible. But

243
00:35:35.230 --> 00:35:45.299
Hana Levay: that is our question. And then another big one I've seen around is our digital archives? For example, an oral history collection. Content. DM,

244
00:35:45.760 --> 00:35:53.379
Hana Levay: does this fall under the digital archive exemption? What about new items added to the collection that's already there?

245
00:35:54.463 --> 00:35:57.999
Hana Levay: There's just so many little details about these exceptions. And

246
00:35:58.607 --> 00:36:06.529
Hana Levay: how we address that. What about if we're applying for a grant for a digital collection of sound recordings? Would we

247
00:36:06.610 --> 00:36:08.010
Hana Levay: need to work

248
00:36:08.080 --> 00:36:12.089
Hana Levay: into that? Grant requests additional money for making that collection accessible.

249
00:36:12.910 --> 00:36:18.039
Hana Levay: So those are some of the major areas I've seen surface from from other conversations.

250
00:36:18.599 --> 00:36:23.539
Hana Levay: And I'd like to address our discomfort in not having clarity on what to do.

251
00:36:23.670 --> 00:36:30.960
Hana Levay: And so we just need to come up together with plans and procedures and timelines for remediation.

252
00:36:31.894 --> 00:36:43.950
Hana Levay: Oh, and what are the consequences? If we haven't achieved 100% compliance on April 27, th 2,026. Will it be enough just to have remediation plans in place

253
00:36:44.500 --> 00:36:47.089
Hana Levay: show that we're doing our due diligence

254
00:36:47.280 --> 00:36:52.220
Hana Levay: so to wrap it up. How do we stay focused on our common professional goal?

255
00:36:52.280 --> 00:36:54.750
Hana Levay: We're providing access to information

256
00:36:54.870 --> 00:36:59.710
Hana Levay: rather than getting bogged down and terrified by the frustrating and

257
00:36:59.900 --> 00:37:03.699
Hana Levay: frightening realm of compliance and liability.

258
00:37:03.860 --> 00:37:06.209
Hana Levay: So hopefully, I've scared y'all.

259
00:37:07.700 --> 00:37:27.659
Blake Reid: All right. Womp womp. Thank you, Hannah, you you've done the job normally performed by lawyers scaring people. But now we we have the great pleasure to to try and untangle some of these questions about 3rd party electronic resources, institutional repositories, digital archives.

260
00:37:27.660 --> 00:37:51.419
Blake Reid: non compliance, managing 3rd parties and so forth. And we are going to start with Nancy Sims, who is, as mentioned, the director of Copyright Scholarly Comms at the University of Minnesota libraries, who's gonna share a little bit with us about how her library is preparing to answer, interpret, and implement. Excuse me some of these exact regulations, Nancy, over to you.

261
00:37:52.650 --> 00:37:56.720
Nancy Sims: Thanks. Oddly enough, I'm gonna be a lawyer who's gonna try to

262
00:37:56.770 --> 00:38:20.679
Nancy Sims: to decrease the fear. This is this is just a strange role reversal. So the 1st thing I have to say is is something that which is I. I'm not an in depth expert on Ada compliance, and certainly not with electronic documents. We are lucky enough to have, some people in our library who are much more, have have much more expertise on that, including Amy Dreher, who's where our web accessibility lead.

263
00:38:20.680 --> 00:38:29.939
Nancy Sims: and we have a task force under our director of equity and inclusion and accessibility. Patricia Isaac.

264
00:38:30.278 --> 00:38:48.550
Nancy Sims: Patricia has convened a task force. Amy is one of the people on it. We have representation there from our E resources, teams from our It teams from our digital collections teams from just like everybody who this is gonna touch on in the entire library. Is represented on the task force.

265
00:38:48.550 --> 00:39:03.871
Nancy Sims: and we've had a few meetings, and one of the things we've already started doing is making a list of what might qualify for the archived web content, exception, and talking about things like Eresources, where we don't think they will qualify subscription eresources.

266
00:39:04.610 --> 00:39:15.707
Nancy Sims: that's about as much detail as I can go into in terms of what we are functionally doing, because that's about as far as we have gotten, which is about as far as everybody else has gotten to.

267
00:39:16.320 --> 00:39:39.179
Nancy Sims: So I'm going to shift gears in the next couple of minutes here, and just say that one thing we're looking at, and certainly one thing that the arl documentation does is, you know, looking at what our subscription licenses do in these places, our subscription licenses usually say that things have to be accessible already.

268
00:39:39.524 --> 00:39:58.149
Nancy Sims: Because this has been a requirement to some degree under various parts of the Ada. For quite a while. Whether our vendors are fully up on Us. Accessibility requirements is one thing, and whether they are meeting technical standards is another thing, because the technical standards have not typically been specifically

269
00:39:58.918 --> 00:40:02.231
Nancy Sims: written down in in many of the Regs before.

270
00:40:03.170 --> 00:40:24.759
Nancy Sims: the negotiations with our vendors. May require things like saying, if you don't provide the level of service you promised. We are not going to pay you because you are not holding up your end of the deal. I mean, I can't actually imagine a library doing that, because libraries typically never

271
00:40:24.840 --> 00:40:36.569
Nancy Sims: say they won't pay their contractors even when our contractors are not holding up their ends of the deal. But that is actually a thing people do in business. If you have a contract.

272
00:40:36.590 --> 00:40:42.109
Nancy Sims: you don't have to follow your end of the deal. If the other party is not following their end of the deal.

273
00:40:42.290 --> 00:41:05.840
Nancy Sims: I don't see that being likely, just because it's not a typical practice in our field, but it is something to think about, you know, in the very back pocket of if this is essential, and they're of a able to make it accessible. But they're not holding up their end of the deal. We do have some heavy handed enforcement mechanisms less heavy handed would be saying, we might not be able to renew with you. If you can't meet the

274
00:41:05.840 --> 00:41:35.099
Nancy Sims: these standards or coming back to the table and saying, You know, we have alternatives to your product that do meet some accessibility requirements. Sometimes, unfortunately, we're not going to have alternatives. A lot of our vendors are the only source of things. So we this is something where we're going to have to apply our negotiation skills. I'm really, really lucky that I also have skilled resources staff, including our lead there. Sunshine Carter, who is tremendous at negotiation and negotiation is not something every library is super comfortable with.

275
00:41:36.086 --> 00:41:50.179
Nancy Sims: So the last thing I want to talk about is shifting gears again away from the contract and subscriptions to this compliance? How do we comply with this? Where do we? Where do we follow the rule? How do we follow the rules? What do we do to avoid all risk?

276
00:41:50.290 --> 00:41:57.590
Nancy Sims: That seems to be what a lot of library folks are saying is, what do we do to avoid all risk? Oh, if we do that, it might be risky.

277
00:41:58.740 --> 00:42:03.270
Nancy Sims: I would encourage you to try to take risk

278
00:42:03.520 --> 00:42:17.250
Nancy Sims: out of your calculations or not out, but to try to not to make that your focus regulations always have when they're when they're new and newly written. There are always places where it's not exactly clear what you have to do to comply with them?

279
00:42:17.774 --> 00:42:33.070
Nancy Sims: We in libraries actually do have the experience needed to make reasonable guesses about how to comply with these regulations. Sometimes we might need to confer with our legal counsel or with Ada Ada experts.

280
00:42:33.070 --> 00:42:58.040
Nancy Sims: But we are the ones with the expertise about our programs and how achievable certain things are, and what would be a fundamental alteration, and whether we can do something that is an alternative. If there would be a fundamental alteration. What else can we do to make things accessible? We have expertise, and in some cases we are the best positioned people to try to make guesses at how to address the gaps or not gaps even, but just fill in the edges of these

281
00:42:58.040 --> 00:43:00.230
Nancy Sims: regulations. So risk

282
00:43:00.230 --> 00:43:16.979
Nancy Sims: makes us feel nervous, makes us feel afraid to interpret at all. But we have expertise. We have communities, we can work together to develop reasonable, functional, functional, and implementable interpretations of the regulations in the spaces that we have questions.

283
00:43:17.270 --> 00:43:19.680
Nancy Sims: So that's about it for me, for now.

284
00:43:20.900 --> 00:43:44.339
Blake Reid: Thanks so much, Nancy. That is a terrific point to jump over to Claire Stanley, who is the director of advocacy and government affairs at the American Council of the Blind. Claire, I want to turn it over to you. And I know you're gonna focus on some of the big questions that Hannah raised

285
00:43:44.340 --> 00:43:51.350
Blake Reid: about the many exceptions that Nancy marched through at the beginning. Claire, over to you.

286
00:43:51.840 --> 00:44:17.470
Claire Stanley: Great. Thank you so much, Blake. Like, Blake said. My name's Claire Stanley. I'm the director of Advocacy and Governmental affairs for the American Council of the Blind. So I just wanted to talk briefly about. 1st of all, the reaction from the blind community as well as the disability community at large. And then how we kind of foresee some of this stuff playing forward in the next few years, and how we'd like to work with librarians, because we know it's not an easy fix.

287
00:44:18.020 --> 00:44:33.849
Claire Stanley: but starting 1st and foremost, the blind and low vision community. And again, the disability community at large. We were really excited to see this happen. The promulgations of these regulations were 1st suggested during the Obama administration. It never happened

288
00:44:34.110 --> 00:44:57.860
Claire Stanley: and it took us, I think, something like 13 years for it to finally happen. So we're excited. And we know, you know I'm trying to. As I listen to you guys have a somewhat sympathetic ear, cause I know it's not going to be easy, but I can tell you I hate to say us and them or our side. But from our side we're ecstatic because it's something that has been something we've long waited for, and access to a lot of resources is still really limiting.

289
00:44:58.350 --> 00:45:13.249
Claire Stanley: We are, however, a little frustrated, with some of the exceptions, again trying to have a sympathetic ear. I know you guys have a big weight on your shoulders. But a lot of the exceptions really, again, limit a lot of the things we have access to, and I'll give an example

290
00:45:13.480 --> 00:45:37.990
Claire Stanley: and just a little bit we were excited that there they initially started, with 7 exceptions, and 2 of them were removed during the rulemaking process. Many of us in the disability community responded to the notice of proposed rulemaking, which is the process to come out with the regulations. I mean, we like to think that our advocacy and writing those comments eliminated those 2 exceptions. So we were excited to see that. But we're still concerned that

291
00:45:37.990 --> 00:45:44.760
Claire Stanley: so many of the exceptions will make it more difficult for us to get access to the things that we need.

292
00:45:46.005 --> 00:45:47.060
Claire Stanley: So

293
00:45:48.611 --> 00:46:04.380
Claire Stanley: yeah, sorry. Another go through my notes. I again just a quick example before I move on things like the archived access our archive materials and not having access to those until somebody makes an express request for them, and then it has to be remediated.

294
00:46:04.380 --> 00:46:29.339
Claire Stanley: I've heard stories, so the American Council of the blind is a membership organization, and we have members from across the country who are blind or low vision. I've heard stories of people who are working on Phd dissertations who need access to those truly archived long ago resources? And they're not available in an accessible format often. And so it makes it really hard for them to do the research that they need to write their dissertation. And there's lots of stories like

295
00:46:29.340 --> 00:46:37.400
Claire Stanley: like that. So again, I know you guys are a lot of you librarians are saying. Oh, we have ways to do that. But just trying to give the the perspective we're coming from.

296
00:46:38.306 --> 00:46:46.980
Claire Stanley: Quickly to go through what we foresee. We, the disability community, foresee, as far as implementation of the regulations and how they'll impact our community.

297
00:46:47.305 --> 00:47:11.089
Claire Stanley: Only legal interpretation will say how this plays out, you know, hopefully, in an ideal world everything will be done properly. But again, hearing from your community, it is a big lift. I get that. And it's gonna be really hard to implement. So if challenges are brought which not to be a cynic, but challenges will be brought legally. How will the courts interpret these regulations? Historically? The

298
00:47:11.090 --> 00:47:18.210
Claire Stanley: the court systems have not always seen kindly to disability rights law interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities act.

299
00:47:18.210 --> 00:47:46.509
Claire Stanley: knock on wood, fingers crossed. That won't be the case, but only time will tell. The Supreme Court has not been our friend, and especially with what the court looks like right now. So hopefully, that won't happen. We're all going to play well in the sandbox. Everybody's gonna comply with these new regulations. But we're just kind of curious to see what will happen. But the last thing I want to say in this section is and Nancy Horton did a great job talking about this. There is a provision under the Ada that talks about undue burdens

300
00:47:46.820 --> 00:48:16.319
Claire Stanley: the in. Generally speaking, the one thing we do have on our side is that courts have generally been pretty. They've held a high bar, for when complainants say that there's an undue burden to make something accessible, or to comply with the Ada. So we do have that on our side. So again, not trying to to sound lofty, but you know we do feel that at least in that respect we will be able to to see this carried on, and then the last quick session I section I wanted to talk about is

301
00:48:16.320 --> 00:48:39.509
Claire Stanley: a librarian obligations to talking to you guys, but how we can work together from those of us who are blind who are excited about these new regulations. So it'll benefit our community. But how we can work together. Because again, I hope you guys don't hear us saying, yes, we won. You guys have to do this for us. We really do think we can work together. But again, this is something really important to our community.

302
00:48:40.810 --> 00:49:01.139
Claire Stanley: so again, going based off of some stuff, Nancy Horton said. Who's an expert in this law, despite any of the exceptions under title 2, like Nancy said, libraries still have to provide these materials upon request, so if they fall under exception, you still have to provide them or provide us these materials.

303
00:49:01.140 --> 00:49:24.510
Claire Stanley: So I kind of wanted to just use this last last section to say, Okay, so say it falls under exception, we still need those materials. Yes, it makes us a little more frustrated because we have to request it, but know that you still have to remediate the materials, and so kind of a question I wanted to pose. Is, is it easier to remediate in the situation where I, for instance, come and knock on your door and say, I need these materials.

304
00:49:24.510 --> 00:49:50.370
Claire Stanley: or is it easier to do it ahead of time? Now I know you guys are librarians, and you know this world far better than I. So you're probably saying, Claire, you're being way, too, Pollyannish. It's so much more difficult to remediate. Or if we try to ask our, you know, publishers to license. You know these contracts to make accessible materials. See, I don't even speak your language. You're probably saying you're too Pollyannish to say, you know, make sure they do it ahead of time.

305
00:49:50.510 --> 00:49:59.359
Claire Stanley: But again, I just want to put that optimistic idea out there that it's a lot easier to do it ahead of time versus going back and trying to remediate

306
00:49:59.703 --> 00:50:17.590
Claire Stanley: again. Just talking about Title 2. This falls under effective communication under title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So just know that again, even if it falls under exception, we're still going to request the materials. And is it easier to do it once we request it? Or is it easier to do it beforehand?

307
00:50:17.590 --> 00:50:46.559
Claire Stanley: And it probably has to do with when the information is published, we totally get that. If it's an archive document from 50 years ago, it's a lot more difficult. But let's look now to 2024, and going forward that when documents are made right now, let's make them accessible from the get go so that we don't have these problems moving forward again. I don't work in publishing. I don't work with these contracts, so maybe I'm being too simplistic. But I just want those ideas to ring on our head as we work on it.

308
00:50:47.016 --> 00:51:05.379
Claire Stanley: And again, just want to talk about how important this is as I close that I know. For you guys, it's a really overwhelming idea to make materials acceptable. But please understand, from our perspective this opens a world of access that we have been advocating for for so long, because it really does impact millions of America.

309
00:51:05.580 --> 00:51:06.360
Claire Stanley: Thank you.

310
00:51:07.640 --> 00:51:32.370
Blake Reid: Thanks so much, Claire, and I really appreciate those notes, and wanted to tie in something that someone just said in the Chat Dee Kramer says, low vision and blind librarians are very excited about the changes, and so I hope the spirit that you've advocated, for there Claire is going to also find some roots among

311
00:51:32.370 --> 00:51:56.900
Blake Reid: among librarians themselves as well. Your last comments on looking to new materials and and sort of born accessible materials leads us to the last sort of quadrant of our prepared remarks. And for that I'm going to head over to Sam Tarami, who's a licensing librarian at the University University of California.

312
00:51:56.900 --> 00:52:21.559
Blake Reid: Berkeley and Sam. You're on the agenda twice, but I want to just collapse this and turn it over to you to kick into our conversation about how these regulations intersect with license eresources, and how you handle negotiations with publishers. We've heard some allusions to that already. So, looking forward to your thoughts. Sam, over to you.

313
00:52:22.660 --> 00:52:28.590
Samantha Teremi: Thanks, Blake. So I wanted to just start off. I'm experiencing some spotty campus wi-fi. So please bear with me

314
00:52:28.981 --> 00:52:38.810
Samantha Teremi: and I wanted to start by getting into the nitty gritty of why we think that this regulation applies to licensed E resources, and what our interpretation is.

315
00:52:39.313 --> 00:52:54.660
Samantha Teremi: So, as mentioned a little bit by Nancy Horton. Earlier, the Doj has implemented new technical requirements that requires that web content be made available by State entities, whether directly or through 3rd parties, via licensing or re agreements

316
00:52:55.880 --> 00:53:24.150
Samantha Teremi: and that these be provided to people with disabilities according to the guidelines set forth in Wcag 2.1 at level Aa. Unfortunately, within the regulation web content is not explicitly defined. So we're unable to say for certain whether web content only includes that which is made publicly available online, or rather, if it also pertains to eresources that are made available to authorize users and exist behind authentication walls

317
00:53:24.250 --> 00:53:35.899
Samantha Teremi: with a cautious approach. We've interpreted the Doj's use of web content to apply to eresources, in part because of the statements in Appendix D. That explain why the changes were made

318
00:53:36.350 --> 00:53:49.990
Samantha Teremi: specifically in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The language initially read that a public entity makes available to members of the public or uses to offer services, programs, or activities to members of the public.

319
00:53:50.030 --> 00:54:02.030
Samantha Teremi: However, in the final rule, the Doj dropped to the phrase members of the public, and instead, references web content and mobile apps that a public entity provides or makes available.

320
00:54:02.240 --> 00:54:16.719
Samantha Teremi: since the broader language use of makes available is used in comparison to makes available to members of the public. We believe this applies to licensed eresources, even those meant for authorized users behind authentication walls.

321
00:54:17.060 --> 00:54:37.369
Samantha Teremi: Furthermore, the notice of proposed rulemaking proposed an exception for password, protected course, content. But the Doj dropped that exception in response to pushback during the comment period, which could be another indication that web content is meant to include openly available content and content that requires user authentication.

322
00:54:38.370 --> 00:54:58.270
Samantha Teremi: And so Catherine has some slides that she's going to put up for me. But I want to get into our negotiation strategy specifically at Berkeley for acquiring born accessible materials. As Claire was mentioning and moving away from doing modifications after the fact.

323
00:55:00.310 --> 00:55:05.310
Samantha Teremi: So regardless of whether you believe this ruling applies to your licensed erases or not.

324
00:55:05.400 --> 00:55:11.060
Samantha Teremi: you can still utilize license agreements in order to achieve the same accessibility outcomes.

325
00:55:11.110 --> 00:55:33.089
Samantha Teremi: In fact, the Doj has expressly stated that the anticipated result of this new ruling will be more accessible. Licensed content. This, too, is Uc. Berkeley's approach to licensing our strategy is publicly reflected within our digital accessibility statement on the Library's website, which allows us to be transparent about the licensing process and the kinds of things that we negotiate. For.

326
00:55:33.250 --> 00:55:49.349
Samantha Teremi: for example, typically, most libraries will ask for a vpat during licensing to determine the resources level of compliance, and then, if necessary, the library or the campus's disability office will make modifications based on the needs of its users. At their request

327
00:55:50.280 --> 00:55:59.189
Samantha Teremi: at Berkeley we've been going a step further by placing the onus on vendors and publishers to make sure their resources are accessible when we receive them.

328
00:55:59.210 --> 00:56:10.070
Samantha Teremi: which is otherwise known as born accessible materials. This eliminates the work of having to make reasonable modifications after the fact, or seek an exception on the basis of undue burden.

329
00:56:10.100 --> 00:56:23.990
Samantha Teremi: It also helps us to avoid a liability on the campus's end, as we've established that it's the vendor's responsibility, 1st and foremost, to provide us with accessible materials, and that we're not purchasing non accessible materials if we can help it.

330
00:56:24.250 --> 00:56:26.040
Samantha Teremi: So how do we go about this

331
00:56:26.360 --> 00:56:38.810
Samantha Teremi: unsurprisingly, and like many other universities, we 1st ask for a current Vpat to ensure that we are always aware of any accessibility limitations and are prepared to meet the needs of our authorized users with disabilities.

332
00:56:39.750 --> 00:57:06.550
Samantha Teremi: We then implement new language in our contract that asks for a warranty or representation that the vendor is compliant with California, State, and Federal accessibility laws, as well as the web content and access guidelines formerly at level 2. But we've started negotiating for 2.1 in accordance with the new regulation, and if Catherine could switch the slide. There is some sample language that I can show you.

333
00:57:07.681 --> 00:57:31.950
Samantha Teremi: So this is typically what we use. It asks for California, Federal and Wcag compliance. And then, additionally, we ask for representation that the vendor will make reasonable efforts to solve any accessibility issues that arise, so that the responsibility to resolve complaints, falls to the publisher instead of the library's technical staff, or the campus's office of disability, access, and compliance.

334
00:57:32.640 --> 00:57:37.429
Samantha Teremi: and then moving to the next section of the contract that we edit.

335
00:57:38.059 --> 00:57:50.629
Samantha Teremi: We go down to the warranty disclaimer section of the contract where you'll typically find language that says something along the lines of the vendor, disclaims all warranties and provides the licensed materials. As is

336
00:57:50.790 --> 00:58:15.349
Samantha Teremi: so we've started adding language that prohibits the vendor from disclaiming the accessibility warranty that they just provided us by adding, except with respect to express warranties in front of those statements, so, except with respect to express warranties, they can disclaim anything else, but they cannot disclaim the warranty. They just provided that their material is wcag compliant.

337
00:58:17.320 --> 00:58:22.639
Samantha Teremi: And then we move on to the indemnification section.

338
00:58:23.368 --> 00:58:32.220
Samantha Teremi: So. Similarly, we apply the same type of language. The contract will usually say the vendor shall not be held liable for any damages

339
00:58:32.330 --> 00:58:37.329
Samantha Teremi: which we amend to be, except with respect to any express warranties.

340
00:58:37.420 --> 00:58:40.410
Samantha Teremi: Vendors shall not be held liable for any damages

341
00:58:40.570 --> 00:59:08.349
Samantha Teremi: by adding this. If the University gets sued based on accessibility claims. Then there are already contractual terms established that would have the vendor indemnify us and would shift that legal responsibility onto the vendor. This also helps the university with potential Pr issues that would arise from an accessibility lawsuit. As we can point to our efforts to work with vendors that have specifically promised to provide accessible materials when we entered the agreement.

342
00:59:09.350 --> 00:59:19.779
Samantha Teremi: Additionally, it's worth mentioning that you could also negotiate for the publisher. Failing to provide accessible material to be considered a material breach of the contract.

343
00:59:19.900 --> 00:59:32.400
Samantha Teremi: Uc. Berkeley does not currently do this, but we are in the process of working with our general counsel to establish language for this that we could incorporate into our contracts and boost our overall accessibility strategy.

344
00:59:34.243 --> 00:59:48.040
Samantha Teremi: So, lastly, to talk about the outcomes we've been doing this for about 2 years now, and have found that the vast majority of vendors have been very accepting of our new contract language with very little negotiation involved.

345
00:59:48.170 --> 01:00:13.299
Samantha Teremi: Occasionally smaller vendors won't accept certain parts of the accessibility warranty, like agreeing to California State law. If their business resides in a different State, or even our Federal law if they reside in a different country, but we'll narrow down their concern and adapt our language accordingly, to ensure that we get an accessibility warranty that's agreeable for both parties and as close to the original language as possible.

346
01:00:13.300 --> 01:00:23.700
Samantha Teremi: We typically can agree on Wcag compliance as that's a standard that's somewhat universal and not dependent on any statute or legislation.

347
01:00:24.380 --> 01:00:47.249
Samantha Teremi: Another negotiation hurdle we encounter is vendors wanting to say that they will endeavor or make best efforts to comply with the Ada. In these situations we like to remind them that they are obligated to comply with Federal laws, whether they warrant to or not, and will simply remove mention of Federal law from our clause and stick with just Wcag.

348
01:00:47.510 --> 01:00:55.450
Samantha Teremi: But I think it is important that we reiterate to publishers and vendors that this is something that they are expected to comply with

349
01:00:55.850 --> 01:01:05.689
Samantha Teremi: thankfully. We have not yet encountered the need to walk away from a negotiation due to being unable to secure a representation of compliance with accessibility standards

350
01:01:05.890 --> 01:01:33.440
Samantha Teremi: in full transparency. Were this issue to come up in the near future, it's unlikely that we'd be able to walk away from a negotiation entirely, solely due to an accessibility concern, as it would not be a widely supported outcome within our specific library. However, our University is currently in the process of changing the guidelines around this, which will require us to pursue a waiver. If we cannot reach acceptable accessibility terms, or would face undue burden.

351
01:01:33.440 --> 01:01:48.220
Samantha Teremi: We don't know the details of this process yet, but we do know that it will shed light on it will shed light to library stakeholders on the importance of acquiring accessible materials, and set the tone on the principles the University is willing to uphold

352
01:01:48.540 --> 01:02:07.499
Samantha Teremi: overall. It's been very encouraging to see such willingness and cooperation from vendors to provide born accessible materials, and we're excited to continue tweaking our strategy in order to secure the best possible accessibility outcomes for our users, and hopefully create a positive shift within the library and publishing spheres.

353
01:02:08.650 --> 01:02:12.179
Samantha Teremi: And with that I'm happy to turn it back over to Blake.

354
01:02:13.150 --> 01:02:37.140
Blake Reid: Awesome, Sam. Thanks so much. And I want to come back to some of these licensing questions in our discussion. But it's time to shift over to our discussion. So if folks have additional questions, please drop them in the chat, and I will try and pick them up. But we've had a few already, so I want to pick up with one that John Berger

355
01:02:37.140 --> 01:02:59.779
Blake Reid: raised about private universities. And, Nancy, I'm hoping I could pull you back into the conversation here. Obviously, title 2 doesn't apply directly to private entities who are generally governed by the Rehabilitation Act. If they accept Federal funds. Obviously these regulations are under title 2, and not under the Rehab Act.

356
01:03:00.113 --> 01:03:28.789
Blake Reid: Nancy, I'm wondering for your thoughts, and sorry I should have specified. We have 2 Nancy's. I was thinking of Nancy Horton. But, Nancy Sims, please feel free to weigh in as well. What are your thoughts about? How the courts, about how the Department of Justice and and Claire Stanley. You may have some thoughts about this, as well might import some of the substance of these new title. 2 Regs when they're applying the Rehab act in the context of private universities.

357
01:03:31.108 --> 01:03:32.901
Nancy Horton: Well, this is Nancy Horton.

358
01:03:33.460 --> 01:03:42.909
Nancy Horton: I mean a couple of things. Yeah. Title 2 doesn't apply to private entities. Title 3 applies to a lot of private entities.

359
01:03:43.870 --> 01:03:52.030
Nancy Horton: you know, as some of you may be aware, when the Doj 1st started their rulemaking around this topic.

360
01:03:52.100 --> 01:03:57.799
Nancy Horton: they planned, as they have done in the past, to make

361
01:03:57.880 --> 01:04:02.939
Nancy Horton: to 2 2 rules, one for title, 2 and one for title 3. Simultaneously.

362
01:04:03.565 --> 01:04:13.810
Nancy Horton: They they backed away from that in recent years, for a number of reasons, and one of which was they thought, well, let's let's start with title 2,

363
01:04:13.940 --> 01:04:15.380
Nancy Horton: and let's learn

364
01:04:15.480 --> 01:04:17.459
Nancy Horton: how that goes.

365
01:04:19.230 --> 01:04:26.430
Nancy Horton: but, as many of you may be aware, you know, the Department of Justice. You know, took the position

366
01:04:26.620 --> 01:04:27.680
Nancy Horton: that

367
01:04:27.720 --> 01:04:30.589
Nancy Horton: both title 2 and title. 3 reach

368
01:04:31.040 --> 01:04:34.580
Nancy Horton: online services and activities and

369
01:04:34.750 --> 01:04:36.010
Nancy Horton: things

370
01:04:36.260 --> 01:04:38.219
Nancy Horton: in 1996,

371
01:04:38.640 --> 01:04:42.309
Nancy Horton: you know, long, long time ago and have

372
01:04:42.630 --> 01:04:51.859
Nancy Horton: done, you know, work and enforcement work and entered all kinds of settlement agreements. There have been all kinds of court cases for many, many years, and in recent years

373
01:04:51.990 --> 01:04:57.639
Nancy Horton: Doj has entered lots and lots of settlement agreements, and with both public and private

374
01:04:57.660 --> 01:04:59.460
Nancy Horton: entities. But a lot of

375
01:04:59.940 --> 01:05:02.630
Nancy Horton: public entities under title 2

376
01:05:03.740 --> 01:05:05.200
Nancy Horton: using Wcack

377
01:05:05.670 --> 01:05:19.910
Nancy Horton: as as a technical you know, standard to to measure compliance. And so there were a couple of reasons why they did the rule the way they did and why they chose the Wcag, and the version

378
01:05:19.920 --> 01:05:26.509
Nancy Horton: that they chose, because people had have had a lot of time to be familiar

379
01:05:27.130 --> 01:05:37.040
Nancy Horton: with with these concepts. Now, because section because title. 2 of the Ada is really modeled very closely on section 504.

380
01:05:37.190 --> 01:05:39.070
Nancy Horton: I often refer to them, as

381
01:05:39.320 --> 01:05:42.189
Nancy Horton: you know, twin twin sons of different congresses.

382
01:05:44.130 --> 01:05:52.469
Nancy Horton: you know, they're they're just very, very similar, and a lot of other Federal agencies. For example, Department of Education.

383
01:05:52.580 --> 01:05:53.650
Nancy Horton: HUD,

384
01:05:54.311 --> 01:05:57.619
Nancy Horton: have entered settlement agreements and resolution.

385
01:05:57.640 --> 01:06:04.219
Nancy Horton: agreements and things of that nature on on this, on these issues, access to web content, and so forth

386
01:06:04.910 --> 01:06:08.919
Nancy Horton: for a long time. So I think it's not unreasonable to expect

387
01:06:09.420 --> 01:06:13.409
Nancy Horton: that section 5, 0. 4 would be viewed

388
01:06:13.690 --> 01:06:16.189
Nancy Horton: in in a very similar light

389
01:06:16.400 --> 01:06:18.130
Nancy Horton: to Title 2.

390
01:06:18.270 --> 01:06:24.749
Nancy Horton: And when it comes to title 3. I think that's again. We'll we'll get there.

391
01:06:25.332 --> 01:06:34.270
Nancy Horton: We'll get there. That may be down the road a piece, and the details might be different, based on a number of factors.

392
01:06:35.060 --> 01:06:39.509
Nancy Horton: both related to the distinctions between the 2 titles, and maybe what we learn

393
01:06:39.570 --> 01:06:41.860
Nancy Horton: with the implementation of this rule

394
01:06:42.240 --> 01:06:46.260
Nancy Horton: under title 2. But again, the Department of Justice

395
01:06:46.800 --> 01:06:50.559
Nancy Horton: already considers title 3. To reach

396
01:06:50.900 --> 01:06:54.239
Nancy Horton: the websites and mobile apps of

397
01:06:54.470 --> 01:06:58.900
Nancy Horton: covered entities. Title three's coverage is narrower. It's more specific

398
01:06:59.140 --> 01:07:06.849
Nancy Horton: and title two's, which is broad. It just covers everything state and local governments do, and courts have been a little more

399
01:07:06.900 --> 01:07:10.839
Nancy Horton: accepting of that sort of broad application

400
01:07:10.970 --> 01:07:12.629
Nancy Horton: of title 2

401
01:07:13.030 --> 01:07:14.610
Nancy Horton: than what we've seen

402
01:07:14.650 --> 01:07:18.179
Nancy Horton: around. Title 3. So I think private institutions.

403
01:07:18.560 --> 01:07:21.120
Nancy Horton: I think if they're covered by 5 0, 4,

404
01:07:21.430 --> 01:07:26.240
Nancy Horton: you know, it'd be wise to maybe just sort of use this rule as guide as a guideline

405
01:07:26.820 --> 01:07:29.040
Nancy Horton: and and follow it because you're going to.

406
01:07:29.120 --> 01:07:31.250
Nancy Horton: It's going to put you in a good position.

407
01:07:31.390 --> 01:07:32.760
Nancy Horton: come what may.

408
01:07:33.580 --> 01:07:58.509
Blake Reid: Yeah, Nancy, I I was. I was hoping that was gonna be your thought that this, the whatever the sort of uncertainty about the application of title 3 of the Ada, and the specific contours of section 5, 0. 4, which no doubt does apply to a lot of private entities. The a good way to resolve that uncertainty is to look to the the title. 2 regs. So I think that's a

409
01:07:58.510 --> 01:08:16.799
Blake Reid: that's a helpful answer, and John hope that gets at your conversation. I want to shift gears and invite in Rachel Sandberg, who has been sharing some thoughts in the chat, and having an exchange with Nancy. That, I think, is, would be a helpful one for us to bring up live, which is

410
01:08:16.800 --> 01:08:37.560
Blake Reid: in this approach to to to how we manage risk, or what's the what's the sort of motivation to guide us through all of the uncertainty that we have discussed today, Rachel, you and Nancy. We're having an exchange about this in the chat, so turn over to you, and then, Nancy, give you a chance to respond.

411
01:08:37.939 --> 01:08:52.809
Rachael Samberg: Sure. Nancy and I know each other well, and we're not really on opposite sides of things here. But what I wanted to flag just because remarks had to be so brief. Was just to clarify that.

412
01:08:53.245 --> 01:09:20.669
Rachael Samberg: I I take very well Nancy's point that rather than scare everyone about this new regulation. Let's give people concrete ways to show them how we can comply with it. And that is an empowering thing to do. And therefore if we focus on that and focus less on on risk, then we're we're not intimidated from moving forward

413
01:09:20.979 --> 01:09:41.079
Rachael Samberg: and at least in the context of Eresources. I think all of that's very true. You heard from Samantha that we have ways that we're moving forward to empower the library to get accessible content that complies through our license agreements. However, if we don't also bring in the notion of

414
01:09:41.199 --> 01:10:01.109
Rachael Samberg: very serious risk of noncompliance. Then it is increasingly difficult to get buy in for pursuing these and and taking a strong position in our license agreement. So you heard from Samantha, who was very diplomatic about saying, Oh, I don't think we could walk away, and I would say you would see dead bodies

415
01:10:01.552 --> 01:10:27.209
Rachael Samberg: in our library if we walked away on the basis of accessibility, and we can bridge that intellectual gap with the rest of campus and the rest of the librarians who are acquiring content for campus to show them information like, Hey, did you look at? The the Doj's actual explanation and the rule that showed that

416
01:10:27.229 --> 01:10:54.949
Rachael Samberg: remediation costs for higher education institutions are 5.5 billion dollars a year. So you know, we have to back it up with very credible information about what the scope of risk actually is, if we don't get accessible content in order to support the ways that we are empowered to move forward. And that was the only point I wanted to make.

417
01:10:56.620 --> 01:10:58.750
Blake Reid: Nancy, your response.

418
01:10:59.090 --> 01:11:28.399
Nancy Sims: Yeah, as as Rachel says, we really do fundamentally agree here, I think it's going to be incredibly key to help other stakeholders on campus realize what compliance actually means to be able to say. There are true compliance burdens here especially if the other stakeholders on campus really aren't realizing that yet we are. We are lucky at the University of Minnesota, in that the general counsel's office is already on top of this, and is already looking at compliance across the university.

419
01:11:28.884 --> 01:11:45.340
Nancy Sims: And I also really really appreciate Sam's presentation of the the techniques for license licensed e-resource negotiation. And you know, enforcing that kind of stuff. One of the things that changes my

420
01:11:45.400 --> 01:12:00.080
Nancy Sims: angle here just a little bit is that I've been in several conversations with people from my library and from other institutions trying to figure out things about. So we we have large stockpiles of digitized collections.

421
01:12:00.270 --> 01:12:04.650
Nancy Sims: We they're already up there. Many of them are not accessible.

422
01:12:06.520 --> 01:12:07.900
Nancy Sims: many of them.

423
01:12:08.140 --> 01:12:35.910
Nancy Sims: One example I threw in the chat is oral history recordings of obscure historical dialects of speech from immigrant communities. Certainly I actually think we should be remediating all of those. In fact, I am enough of a stickler for accessibility that when I was 1st told to make videos for my job for educating people on campus, about copyright. I said, how are we going to do captions? And they said, We don't have funds to do caption. And so then I said, We're not doing videos, then

424
01:12:35.940 --> 01:12:47.020
Nancy Sims: we aren't I? I was. That was a fundamental for me. So yes, we have needed to be doing this for a while. But when we are looking at our piles of digitized content.

425
01:12:47.200 --> 01:13:06.840
Nancy Sims: something like an obscure historical dialect, oral recording, or even which we also have in the University of Minnesota Library's digital collections, scanned copies of hymnals in obscure dialects. Again, from Swedish immigrant communities, or things like that, making those fully accessible certainly should be done

426
01:13:07.110 --> 01:13:20.350
Nancy Sims: might be a little lower priority than making the things that are currently being used in courses, the things that are currently being subscribed, the newly digitized things, all of this should be accessible. What do we

427
01:13:20.350 --> 01:13:42.670
Nancy Sims: make accessible? First, st the more heavily used things, the more important things, and the things that will cost less, because something like an obscure historical dialect of a language is the sort of thing that could sit in some kind of a undue burden in terms of compliance. Can we hire an expert who actually speaks that language? We might not be able to find anybody, for example.

428
01:13:42.780 --> 01:13:43.550
Nancy Sims: So.

429
01:13:44.730 --> 01:14:09.710
Blake Reid: That's that's terrific, Nancy. Thanks. I want to pick up on a point that you just raised, and invite either you or Rachel, or Sam or Hannah to jump in on this topic of collaboration across the institution. Obviously, some of these are problems are kind of problems and strategies that it folks have been developing

430
01:14:09.710 --> 01:14:21.700
Blake Reid: in the procurement of information technology. Obviously, Nancy, you mentioned the need to collaborate with university counsel. I'm just wondering if folks have

431
01:14:21.700 --> 01:14:26.600
Blake Reid: tips on how they have successfully leveraged relationships.

432
01:14:26.600 --> 01:14:53.780
Blake Reid: either in a really productive way. It sounds like Nancy you had with with university counsel, maybe borrowing best practices from from folks that have been leading on on it issues or going the other way. If you've got recalcitrant university counsel or it. Folks that are that are sort of running behind. And and you're leading at the institution. How have you handled that kind of cross campus, dynamic jump ball for the for for anyone who has thoughts on that.

433
01:14:57.960 --> 01:15:09.040
Rachael Samberg: We love our council, and we're very proactive with them, and it helps that we're up to speed on everything going on. So when we approach council.

434
01:15:09.380 --> 01:15:13.080
Rachael Samberg: it's doing it with a reading of here's what we think

435
01:15:13.140 --> 01:15:16.670
Rachael Samberg: this means. Here's what we think we're able to do.

436
01:15:16.720 --> 01:15:25.053
Rachael Samberg: What do you think, and getting councils buy-in. It has been essential. And it's been essential to like vet

437
01:15:25.490 --> 01:15:26.760
Rachael Samberg: practical

438
01:15:26.860 --> 01:15:36.140
Rachael Samberg: ways forward, too. I mean, you don't have to think that Council is going to say No, or you have to do this. Council understands risk

439
01:15:36.563 --> 01:16:04.470
Rachael Samberg: and and nothing is going to be perfect. It it everything is is a question of like, what is our exposure? If we can't do this? So I I think, taking that, you know respecting that Council has that kind of pragmatic approach. Should make it less intimidating to move forward. I think another thing to do is to build relationships with your disability and accessibility offices of of various ilk. So when we made our

440
01:16:04.873 --> 01:16:34.319
Rachael Samberg: statement for how our electronic resources and our electronic collections comply with federal law. We partnered with them in creating that statement to get buy in so that it doesn't create some kind of hostile relationship where of of fear and mistrust that we're doing things in the library that somehow, you know, don't serve the interests of of the university. So establishing those relationships has been instrumental for how we've moved

441
01:16:34.320 --> 01:16:35.090
Rachael Samberg: forward.

442
01:16:37.720 --> 01:16:42.769
Blake Reid: Thanks, Rachel, pausing just a moment to see if anyone else wants to chime in on that front.

443
01:16:44.350 --> 01:17:09.230
Blake Reid: Looking around, seeing now eager volunteers, I just say as well. Here at Cu one of the approaches that that our folks have had is having a sort of centralized accessibility Governance Council that brings together representatives from the Faculty Assembly, from the libraries, from it, from university council to sort of regularly dig into these these kind of shared policy

444
01:17:09.230 --> 01:17:32.549
Blake Reid: questions. So that's super helpful. I guess. One other collaboration point that that comes to mind. And, Rachel, you may have thoughts on this or others as well, are there any sort of collaborations across universities? Obviously people are negotiating with the same publishers over the the same issues? Maybe there are some antitrust

445
01:17:32.550 --> 01:17:45.999
Blake Reid: questions to to worry about there. But I know that's a conversation that's come up on the It procurement side of the fence. How does that look from your vantage point, setting working across universities.

446
01:17:47.494 --> 01:17:57.239
Rachael Samberg: I think if you ask our council they might have a slightly different take from my my take on this. But mine is we're. We have been very vocal about strategy.

447
01:17:57.470 --> 01:18:24.019
Rachael Samberg: and I don't see strategy as an antitrust issue. Because we're not trying to control price by colluding with other institutions. We're giving language to show institutions how to comply with the law while also getting certain outcomes. I think if you you know there are some

448
01:18:24.370 --> 01:18:27.840
Rachael Samberg: kind of consortial discussions that might get

449
01:18:27.850 --> 01:18:42.229
Rachael Samberg: closer to having an antitrust problem, but at least in the ways that we've been educating and and moving forward. I don't think that that's an issue. But I what I will say is that, and I just put a note in in the chat.

450
01:18:42.590 --> 01:19:06.560
Rachael Samberg: If you are in a public institution with multiple campuses, don't assume for a second that any of those other campuses have the same strategy, or even know what your strategy is, and you know in the Uc. We have campus counsel and every other. Uc campus also has campus counsel, and they're not even talking to each other. And it's not, for, like, you know, lack of desire. It's just

451
01:19:06.560 --> 01:19:30.460
Rachael Samberg: the the scope, the breadth, everything is so big and everyone is so busy. So you do have a very important role as an individual. If you understand these issues, and you're working to, you know, towards a better outcome in your library. I think it's really important within your system, or within your consortia, to to actually provide that education and to to do the outreach, because

452
01:19:31.029 --> 01:19:36.149
Rachael Samberg: every campus has different levels of familiarity and expertise.

453
01:19:37.400 --> 01:20:00.999
Blake Reid: Thanks, Rachel. I wanted to pick up a comment from Amy Dreyer in the chat. He says that the Library Accessibility Alliance has been sending letters to vendors. Maybe to take some of that that sort of communication out of the out of the universities, and and have it come from from A, from a national organization might be another sort of strategy. To think about.

454
01:20:01.415 --> 01:20:25.930
Blake Reid: There's also for folks that that have not been taking are are paying attention to the chat, a good set of questions from Julie Rudder, and about some specific examples. I will refer folks to the chat on on that one so that we don't surface them here. I guess in our last few minutes. And

455
01:20:25.930 --> 01:20:40.989
Blake Reid: I'm looking over at Catherine just to make sure, Catherine, I wanted to bring Claire back in for a couple of closing thoughts from the community before I I turn it over to you to to wind us out. Are we doing okay on time?

456
01:20:40.990 --> 01:20:42.229
Katherine (ARL): We're good. Thank you.

457
01:20:42.810 --> 01:21:07.490
Blake Reid: Claire wanted to come to you for a couple of questions. One is, we heard from Sam about the possibilities of aiming beyond the regulation. So, for example, asking for vendors for things like compliance with Wcag 2.1, or being a little bit more forward, looking, being a little bit more thoughtful. I imagine there are also some

458
01:21:07.490 --> 01:21:23.129
Blake Reid: things that might not be specifically covered by the Regs. But that might be problematic. So, thinking about the web overlay, and AI conversation that has unfolded in other contexts. I'm wondering if also, if there are some

459
01:21:23.130 --> 01:21:39.879
Blake Reid: particular practices, some particular approaches that you would encourage folks to avoid. So things folks can can do to go above and beyond things folks might avoid as they are approaching these regs that might not be be so specifically spelled out.

460
01:21:40.840 --> 01:21:43.098
Claire Stanley: Oh, that's a great question.

461
01:21:43.910 --> 01:22:09.769
Claire Stanley: yeah, I mean there, there's always the the concept, right? That you know. You can adhere to the letter of the law. But you know, thinking more broadly about why? Why we asked for these regulations. And of course you. You have set regulations because it tells you what to do. But the bigger concept is that we want to have access to the materials. Again, giving the example of a student working on their dissertation, who needed access to all kinds of materials and couldn't access

462
01:22:09.770 --> 01:22:30.280
Claire Stanley: with them. And so you don't have the breadth and the depth of resources to really sink your teeth into the research and and really be able to access all those kinds of things. So just trying to think creatively about ways to get the resources out there, even if you can't meet. And I don't know if this is slightly side tapping your question, Blake, but

463
01:22:30.360 --> 01:22:55.279
Claire Stanley: thinking about how you can provide the resources, even if you can't give everything right then and there that complies with the regulations. One thing that kept crossing my mind as we were talking was okay. So maybe you can't make all documents, 100% accessible right here right now because we get it. That's that's a a huge, you know, burden to bear. But knowing your students knowing your audience, maybe you know you have the

464
01:22:55.280 --> 01:23:20.130
Claire Stanley: Phd candidate who's studying h. Ancient Chinese history or something like that. Maybe you'd be especially active in that community, not to say that you shouldn't work on other things. Of course, if we could wave our magic wand, we would have everything. But knowing your audience so that you can really sink your teeth into what's gonna help your students, your professors, your whatever right then and there, so that you can really make a difference in what

465
01:23:20.130 --> 01:23:22.099
Claire Stanley: people need at that given time.

466
01:23:22.733 --> 01:23:46.739
Claire Stanley: Just the the ability to interact with the websites, of course, which is the given under the the new regulations for the website. But I think we've been talking very broadly about actually, the the archived content. So the documents that people are are accessing. But if you can't use the website itself, the search system to get to the documents will then, having accessible documents, is

467
01:23:46.740 --> 01:24:11.310
Claire Stanley: per pointless. Because if I can't get to them, then what's the point? So making sure that those kinds of things are accessible. Like, you talked about. AI, that's a really big new thing. In the disability advocacy space. We keep pointing out the pros and cons of AI. It could make a world of difference, because it could open up a lot of doors. But like a lot of things. If you don't think about accessibility from the get, go, we're going to be left behind.

468
01:24:11.310 --> 01:24:27.940
Claire Stanley: So using it as a tool, not as something to leave us behind, so to speak, the blind community sees that in a lot of different contexts. So I I hope that answers your question, Blake, but just thinking more broadly about how things are applied and the resources that you're providing.

469
01:24:28.740 --> 01:24:53.699
Blake Reid: Yeah, I I think. One thing that's come up in some of these other conversations is being aware of snake oil in remediation and and sort of chasing these deadlines. There are a lot of vendors that are pro sort of promising the world with AI. And I I think the encouragement for folks to keep accessibility, substance in as the primary goal, and to

470
01:24:53.700 --> 01:25:16.979
Blake Reid: carefully those tools, Claire, one more thing before we leave it, that I wanted to dive in. You talked about getting to know your community on campus, getting to know your patrons with disabilities that are relying on the library. Obviously those relationships can be be a little bit challenging to form, particularly when new students are coming in and

471
01:25:16.980 --> 01:25:34.659
Blake Reid: trying to figure out which way is up and may not. There may not just be obvious communication links. What strategies do you recommend for libraries to to build those links to disabled students? Disabled faculty? Are there

472
01:25:34.700 --> 01:25:46.510
Blake Reid: student organizations, faculty organizations, lots of universities that are good, good points of contact. What other thoughts do you have for folks to connect and and try and forge those relationships.

473
01:25:46.810 --> 01:26:02.240
Claire Stanley: Absolutely I think that's a great point and a great question. There are so many different ways you can commute. Connect. Excuse me with the disability community. A lot of universities have disability advocacy clubs for both undergrads and also at law schools.

474
01:26:02.543 --> 01:26:23.479
Claire Stanley: There are a lot of associations like who I work with the American Council of the Blind. We have a student affiliate, called acb students and they have state chapters so reaching out to those different entities. I wouldn't be surprised, for instance, if the National Association of the Deaf also has a student affiliate so reaching out to those existing entities to say, Hey, you know

475
01:26:23.480 --> 01:26:46.930
Claire Stanley: the University of California? I was actually a a student, undergrad and grad school at the University of California system. So it's fun to hear from you guys. Reaching out to the California Council of the Blind and saying, You know, the Uc. System wants to talk with blind students. How can we get you guys involved? They would love that because it's it's a great way to bring bring the conversation together again, and not so much of an adversarial like

476
01:26:46.930 --> 01:27:05.679
Claire Stanley: you will comply with the law, but more of a like, how can we work together to make sure that everything is working the way it should. So yeah, working with either entities on campus or other external organizations. Cause there's a lot of them. I guarantee. If you guys ever need recommendations reach out to me, and I can give you so many different links.

477
01:27:06.664 --> 01:27:12.319
Claire Stanley: Obviously, you have confidentiality. You know, rules as far as who's receiving services?

478
01:27:12.602 --> 01:27:37.149
Claire Stanley: Through disability services centers on campus. But, for instance, I think it would be even great, you know, if you could just send out a blast email to everybody through the Disability services center and say, Hey, if you are trying to learn more about these new title, 2 Regs and want to learn about what makes you know resources accessible. Legal counsel might not like this idea, but just thinking out loud, just having ways to say, Hey, we want to engage with you.

479
01:27:37.150 --> 01:27:54.109
Claire Stanley: If you're a student, and you want to put your heads together and work together. I think students would really appreciate that again, there are, unfortunately, some litigious people, but I'd say the other 98% of us if we were approached and invited to sit at the table and brainstorm. We'd greatly appreciate it.

480
01:27:55.350 --> 01:28:01.129
Blake Reid: Thanks, Claire. That's awesome. And I I'm glad you mentioned the National Association of the Deaf. I think we have

481
01:28:01.130 --> 01:28:25.370
Blake Reid: focus the the conversation here today, primarily on blind students, but obviously both both deaf and hard of hearing students. And then also, folks with cognitive intellectual and learning disabilities are really important part of of the community that needs to be served under these Regs

482
01:28:25.730 --> 01:28:48.820
Blake Reid: as as well as folks with physical and mobility disabilities. And I think also. Another thing that's come up in these conversations is remembering, too, that we're we might be primarily focused on students, but that there are different tranches of students. We also have faculty and staff who rely on on libraries. So thinking about what that broader matrix looks like super important.

483
01:28:48.820 --> 01:28:58.809
Blake Reid: Rachel, I want to go over to you, and then we're just about out of time. So I'll give you the last word on our discussion, and then I'm going to turn it over to John and Catherine to close us out.

484
01:28:58.810 --> 01:29:19.290
Rachael Samberg: Sorry to to eat up this last second. I but just to add, on the understanding of audiences here, yes, it's students, and yes, it's faculty, and it's staff. But we're public institutions. And to Nancy's point, earlier, we digitize our special collections and put them available online for the world.

485
01:29:19.700 --> 01:29:41.889
Rachael Samberg: So it is just as important that all of our public facing materials meet meet these standards, and you know, I'm sure many of you know that. When Berkeley had put up old course content, you know, from decades ago that didn't have captions, there was a doj enforcement order that

486
01:29:42.300 --> 01:30:06.990
Rachael Samberg: You know that that we we're complying with. So it becomes a question of prioritization and what your available resources are, and maybe you are prioritizing the the work with students. But it. It doesn't mean that you are going to escape the court of Public opinion. For the materials that you have online that are public facing, and that don't comply.

487
01:30:08.230 --> 01:30:33.209
Blake Reid: There's a great note to end on before I give it to Katherine and John to close us out. I just want to highlight Brandon Butler and John Band, who have been patiently hanging out in the audience, and delightfully. No one has asked any questions about copyright law. So hopefully we can assume that there are. Copyright law is a pretty optimistic situation that we have

488
01:30:33.210 --> 01:30:58.200
Blake Reid: lots of great exceptions and limitations that we can rely on in these issues. But no, if you have questions about the copyright angles that Arl has a great network of folks who are well versed on those questions as well, and with that I will hand it back to Catherine, and then also John Berger, who has been mentioned by name a couple of times.

489
01:30:58.200 --> 01:31:11.340
Blake Reid: but as the Executive Director of the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries are Acerl and one of the founders of the Library Accessibility Alliance, Katherine John, over to you to close us out.

490
01:31:11.580 --> 01:31:34.950
Katherine (ARL): Thanks, Blake, thanks to all the speakers and participants. This this is this is not the end of this conversation. I hope if there's 1 takeaway. It's that right? We're in this together, and there's there's lots that we can do. And I really appreciate it. John, do you want to say, I have some next steps. I'm actually maybe going to invite Amy Dreyer if you wanna chime in as well. But, John, do you want to say like one word about the Library Accessibility Alliance as as a co-founder just for folks who might not know.

491
01:31:35.493 --> 01:31:43.976
John Burger, ASERL: One word, probably more than one. But for the folks who don't know the Library Accessibility Alliance. Here is the website.

492
01:31:45.450 --> 01:32:05.149
John Burger, ASERL: the Big 10 has been doing accessibility compliance on electronic resources for 7 or 8 years. Now Acerl joined them in 2,019. And then together we created the Library Accessibility Alliance, and have since brought in several more consortia. Many of you on this call belong to one or more of those consortia.

493
01:32:05.512 --> 01:32:14.090
John Burger, ASERL: So the idea being that you know, what can we do together as a group? So we don't all have to do it over and over and over again, individually, at our local institutions.

494
01:32:14.432 --> 01:32:19.739
John Burger, ASERL: And we've been pretty successful at that. And we're doing a lot of awareness raising and training.

495
01:32:20.115 --> 01:32:41.574
John Burger, ASERL: People with the specialized expertise like Amy have, are few and far between, and people are just learning on the job. This is a relatively new topic of concern for people who have been in libraries for a long period of time. It's not been a topic taught in library schools. So what can we do to address that gap? And has been mentioned in here?

496
01:32:42.060 --> 01:32:45.269
John Burger, ASERL: We have been already started doing outreach to vendors

497
01:32:45.740 --> 01:32:53.058
John Burger, ASERL: to say, you know, in case you didn't know there is this law or regulation, and you know, what are you gonna do about it?

498
01:32:54.110 --> 01:32:59.219
John Burger, ASERL: the the licensing language from from Berkeley is wonderful.

499
01:33:00.470 --> 01:33:28.850
John Burger, ASERL: the library Accessibility Alliance recommends licensing language. That the Berkeley language is not currently in the language that we recommend, and that's something I think we need to redress. So I will stop there. Technically, I'm not on the steering committee. I'm I cycled off a couple of weeks ago, but my chair is still warm from my 5 years serving in that chair. But but Amy is the chair, and Liz Lorang just came on. So if Amy wants to to add anything that I missed, I certainly welcome her comments.

500
01:33:29.220 --> 01:33:54.200
Katherine (ARL): I think I think that Liz had to drop. Yeah, Amy, please feel free. I'll I'll since I I'll note that Amy and I. So I knew John. But I met Amy through attending all these webinars and things, and one thing that Amy and I have talked about are kind of this idea of contributing some of the the big questions that Anna raised at the beginning of our discussion here. I'm kind of contributing them to a running list that Ala has been collecting, I think, and there I think they plan to create kind of a frequently asked questions answer based.

501
01:33:54.200 --> 01:34:18.540
Katherine (ARL): And so I think the idea there is to collaborate with experts like Nancy Horton. Who's on our call? Maybe some Doj experts as well. To kind of I don't know, like we do our own interpretation, and then sort of see, you know, if if it if it jives with with the intent of the regulations. So that's 1 thing. That we've talked about as like an explicit sort of next step. And I also want to note so I have grabbed the chat, and we'll sort of see if we can anonymize those questions and contribute them.

502
01:34:18.540 --> 01:34:42.609
Katherine (ARL): And, Nora, I don't mean to leave you hanging. I will try to to connect you with Nancy, to get an answer to your specific question. Another opportunity for further collaboration with library accessibility, alliance, and others is engaging with the publishing community. We've heard a lot about that today from Samantha, from Claire, from others. And so there's conversations around. What can we do with library publishers, with commercial vendors, you know, on, on accessible publishing.

503
01:34:42.620 --> 01:35:08.560
Katherine (ARL): And then we'll also continue. I'll speak for Arl we'll definitely continue to advocate for born accessible publishing, just as we have, you know, in our in our comments. On the title to Nbrm. So I don't know, Amy. We've left you like 30 seconds. So if you want to say anything, okay, here we go. She's amy has noted that. Yes, that La is working with the Library Publishing coalition to address publishing accessibility as well. So there's a lot happening in this space.

504
01:35:08.560 --> 01:35:23.770
Katherine (ARL): And there's definitely going to be more to come. So I that's it for me. Just gratitude to all of you, and we'll we'll reach out with our updated resource and keep keep you posted on next steps, and thank you for all your work in this space. I really appreciate it. Thanks, thank you, Blake, too.

505
01:35:33.600 --> 01:35:34.609
Katherine (ARL): That was great.

506
01:35:37.630 --> 01:35:38.939
Katherine (ARL): I think you're muted.

507
01:35:41.270 --> 01:35:42.940
Blake Reid: Thanks. I was just going to hang on for 2 seconds.