"In the summer of 2010, Peter Mosinskis from CSU Channel Islands assembled a team of approximately fifteen volunteers from seven different CSU campuses and one from the UC system to evaluate the accessibility of Google Apps. The team also recruited student volunteers and screen reader users to assist with the testing. Automated, manual, and screen reader testing began the first week of January 2011 and was completed February 4th.
The report has been completed and posted here for your review. The CSU Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) Staff, ATI Leadership Council, and Google have reviewed the Google Apps Accessibility Evaluation report.
We discovered a number of accessibility issues during our testing. These issues are outlined in the report as well as "workarounds" that can be used to improve the user experience for persons with disabilities. When campuses choose to use Google Apps, they are required to provide an equally effective service for people with disabilities and it is critical for campuses to ensure that the "workarounds" meet the educational needs of the student and/or faculty. The March 15, 2011 USA TODAY online news article "Complaint: Google programs hard for blind students" illustrates possible legal problems that may result from adopting the Google Apps for Education suite.
Questions or Comments about this report may be directed to CSU ATI Staff"
Table of Contents
Print Complete BookPrint This Chapter
Next
ATI Google Apps Accessibility Evaluation
Section 1. Executive Summary
Section 2. About the Project
Section 3. Findings
Section 4. Workarounds, Accommodations and Best Practices
Summary and Conclusions
Authors Note
Appendices A - E
Submitted by thiru on 23. June 2011 - 3:07
"Back in 2009, Brazil decided to table in this Committee a draft treaty on exceptions and limitations on copyrights for the print disabled guided by two assumptions:
(1) The international treaty we are seeking to conclude must be a useful instrument for persons with print disabilities. This is why we tabled a text originally elaborated by the World Blind Union, by people who know best the reality on the ground;
(2) The international copyright regime is a mature system, with more than 120 years of implementation experience in many countries. It is feasible to craft precise and effective E&L norms without depriving the rights of authors to reap the benefits of their creativity. We all recognize those rights and are fully committed to defend them. Let there be no doubt about it.
Those two assumptions remain the guiding principles underlying Brazil's position.
We are committed to helping bring this negotiating process to a successful outcome. For Brazil, a successful outcome is an international instrument which will be an useful and effective one. An effective instrument which makes clear the firm commitment "on the ground" of all Member States to mitigating the book famine of more than 150 million people world-wide. At the end of the process there must be a treaty. Why shouldn't we aim for a treaty?
This question should be answered against the broader background of all the themes under discussion in this Committee."