Maine MOOSE Response:

1. We chose the Topics In Sustainable Community Development book

2. Looking at the resource from the O in POUR (Operable)

3. We tried the 'no mouse challenge' first and it brought us through the website just to the links but not to any of the sections that were created in the book itself. When we used ANDI, it confirmed that the pages (like this one Topics in Sustainable Community Development | OER Commons) didn't have any officially styled headings. It made us wonder what the things that look like headings are actually styled as since they don't register as images either. Additionally, the screen reader wand from the tota11y tool didn't register any of the text at all... how does that happen? More importantly, how do we keep that from happening?

I chose the 14th Amendment and Perceivable

There is a large play video button without a label. The caption to the video and in the video the speakers are identified, but in the transcript during play and in text, each speaker is not identified in their conversation. There is a dialog but it is not as easy to understand without the knowledge of the back-and-forth nature of a dialog. The transcript and closed captioning is incomplete. It stops at 1:39 though the video length is 6:16.
The hand-written notes are not very legible and the choice of color contrast is poor. They do not appear to be transcribed. Emphasized (by underlining) text can not be emphasized in non-existing transcript/Ccaptioning

The slide caption cites XIII Section 1. It should be XIV (14) and as the discussion begins to center around Section 2, the caption does not change.

I was not able to implement tota11y even though this is on a Khan site. Probably operator error- I'll keep practicing.

1. I selected the 14th amendment resource.

2. I chose perceivable.

3. The resource's video includes closed captions. The video player also includes the option to vary the playback speed which may be an important feature for some users. The resource also includes a transcript of the recording. I have questions about whether the person speaking should identify themselves each time they speak even if there are only two speakers. 

1. Choose one of the resources from the shared folder ISKME-curated Resources for Review. You may want to right-click the shared folder link and open it in a new tab. 

I chose the 14th amendment. 

2. Now, choose one of the principles of POUR. 

I am choosing Perceivable. 

3. Evaluate the chosen resource and then comment below with which resource you chose and also what you find when you evaluate that resource for accessibility. Especially share aspects that you have questions about as you evaluate the resource.

I noticed that I was able to access this document through audio, closed captions, and transcript. I think it passes the accessibility test when it comes to P in POUR. 

Choose one of the resources from the shared folder ISKME-curated Resources for Review. You may want to right-click the shared folder link and open it in a new tab. 

I chose Topics in Sustainable Community Development and Operable.  

Evaluate the chosen resource and then comment below with which resource you chose and also what you find when you evaluate that resource for accessibility. Especially share aspects that you have questions about as you evaluate the resource.

I utilized ANDI and a keyboard test to tab through.  I noticed that I couldn't tab to "headings" but I wasn't seeing that come up as an alert in ANDI.  I notices some "ARIA" alerts with ANDI and have some questions around the tool in different platforms.  Links I found were descriptive.

Team B'Ham is eager to apply our learning to specific tools that are currently in circulation - and soon to be rolling out district-wide - so I evaluated some materials from our own OER of choice, the 3Rs curriculum. (Sorry, Joanna!)

I reviewed both a PowerPoint presentation from the authors, as well as a PowerPoint which was adapted by teachers in another district to improve access for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I specifically wanted to see if certain accessibility features were lost in that transition. However, I discovered that the select features I sought were not present in the original PPT.

I focused on Percievable because it was the easiest for me to evaluate in file type and software most likely used to acces this resource.

[Remaining questions about expectations with Operable: it doesn't seem like enough to advance slides, given the definition of accessibility, yet I am unsure of keyboard shortcuts for moving between objects, selecting them, having them read aloud... last time I dug into PPT it seemed like my switch-users needed a click, which we achieved through a switch interface, but wouldn't that fail the no-mouse challenge? I digress...]

I am using PPT on a Mac and, for some reason, don't see Immersive Reader (am I missing something?). I would also like to find Read Aloud. Hoping I'll find these on a PC, such as students use, when I check again later today.

Overall, I found both the source PPT and the teacher-created PPT lacking alternative text. Additional concerns re: POUR include repetitive use of slide titles, and questionable reading order. 

Side note: I love the POUR concept, yet I am tripping a bit on the overlapping concepts... wouldn't the ability to locate text, have it read aloud, and in plain language, be both P, O, and U? Robust could refer to whether you could do the above across platforms, e.g. Windows to Mac, yes? Perhaps I am being too literal in looking for tidy categories that lead to explicit action... just seeking to find effective ways to communicate these concepts to educators!

1. I chose Topics in Sustainable Community Development

2. Operable

3. The images at the end are all over the place and stacked on top of one another which I assume would make it difficult for a screen reader to read/process.

1. Me and my group chose the 14th Amendment from Khan Academy. 

2. We also chose P for perceivable and agreed with our other course peers that found some things to improve on this resource.  
   The choice of colors and contrast is very poor. The colors chosen for writing the timeline (that includes a handwritten typography, apparently, that does not help either) - light blue, light green, light yellow - can cause struggle for students to follow along. 
   While conversation happens between the lecturers of the video, the handwritten timeline is fed, becoming one more piece of information for the student to pay attention to - which could also be hard to do. The timeline should be presented in a different scheme, probably on a white background, with a regular font, with a bigger size, in better contrast.  
   
   We wonder if the explanation itself could not be given by only one narrator, as the timeline develops, in a style more related to an infographic, rather than jn a handwritten typography, while two people chat about the topic.