AtoM Accessibility Audits for Ontario institutions?

[Kelli Babcock]

Hi everyone,

Have any other Ontario institutions done WCAG 2.0 Level AA audits on their public AtoM sites to meet the AODA January 1, 2021, deadline for WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance? 

Accessibility audits have been built into our development work flows for some time, but, now that we're looking ahead to the 2021 deadline, we're seeing some fixes required during preliminary AA compliance audits of our AtoM instance (https://discoverarchives.library.utoronto.ca/). For example, AtoM fails https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F73, since all links are identified only by colour. This is a simple fix, but we're still developing a checklist of other items that may need to be resolved before the January 1, 2021 deadline. 

I was wondering if it would be beneficial for other institutions in Ontario to work together on a compliance checklist of things that will need to be updated in AtoM (we're working with version 2.5.2), and possibly even share remediation code with each other and back to Artefactual Systems?

We'll be doing this work at UTL over the course of the next year anyway, so I'm happy to share the beginnings of our audit checklist and also chat with others who will need to do this work (or have already done it?). It would be great to pool resources and make our AtoM sites more accessible!

Take care,

Kelli

Digital Initiatives Librarian

University of Toronto Libraries | Information Technology Services

kelli.babcock [@] utoronto.ca

[Corinne Rogers]

Hi Kelli,

This has come up before (see this thread), and is a very important topic! We would love to see a checklist developed so we can address accessibility weaknesses in AtoM.

best regards,

Corinne

Systems Archivist

Artefactual Systems

[L Snider]

Hi Kelli,

I am glad to see others bringing up this topic (I have been doing it for a long time, so yea, thank you!). I have worked on digital accessibility for over 21 years (and am Archeion Coordinator as well). Y'all on the listserv likely knew this email was coming, so here goes.

I just wanted to add that I have asked that AtoM 3.0 make accessibility part of its new structure, as currently Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario have accessibility acts that do (or will) cover websites (and hopefully more), as well the Federal Accessible Canada Act is similar, and our federal friends will also have to ensure AtoM meets the minimum that WCAG 2.1 AA provides. Plus, Europe and the EU, Australia and most countries in the world have accessibility legislation that covers websites, albeit many are focused only in a government realm.

I would like to encourage people to go beyond WCAG, which is a flawed standard for many reasons, which includes not doing a lot for people with neurological, cognitive, learning and intellectual disabilities. A full usability and accessibility study is really needed, and I was thrilled to see your post, because you and your colleagues, as well as others can really make a difference, and it is much needed. I was trying to find a grant to do this work for a while, but could never get all my ducks in a row to make it happen.

In my work across Canada, I train and use AtoM every day, and there are many areas of concern in both the usability and accessibility area. Many of those things may not be able to change, because of how the system was built. When I was at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, my supervisor was awesome and supported our efforts to try and make AtoM accessible, but we only scratched the surface. Before that, a screen reader user who was blind or Deaf-Blind could not even get past the logo and search bar.

I fear that an institution using AtoM may get a human rights complaint. Those complaints are over and above any legislation a province (or federal entity) may, or may not, have and they are secret unless they go to the final step, which is court...and in the US this has already happened (under their Federal ADA) to libraries...the train is coming.

I again say in public, what I have been saying for many years, both privately and publicly, software used by libraries, archives, museums, etc. needs to be accessible. It is not hard to do, but it is much easier if it is done from the beginning.

I would urge you to also contact the AtoM 3 committee, because if they will reuse AtoM 2 code then your efforts will be very well used! If not, then this process, unless they bake this in at the beginning, will have to take place again, and it may take years to accomplish. However, I have to state that they have been very responsive to this issue, and that was encouraging.

I am more hopeful than AtoM 3 will be way more accessible and usable for everyone, because it is 2019 and we must make a change.

I write this email as a person, and digital accessibility consultant, and not as an employee of the provinces I do work for!

Cheers

Lisa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/73458f8a-0cc4-47b8-9a21-f970efb44080%40googlegroups.com.

[Kelli Babcock]

A very delayed note to say thank you for the responses. If anyone might find it helpful, I have shared the outline of our audit documentation to Google Drive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Te4JoZjVD4RHTGoux9WRNqm5D80srMlDHRQipP3qM0A/edit?usp=sharing 

I am still interested in chatting with others who are on the ground doing this auditing or remediation work, or creating other accessibility improvements for their own AtoM instances. I'm sure we'll run into similar questions. A great place to connect on these issues might be the code4lib #accessibility Slack channel - people can join at https://code4lib.org/slack). Lots of accessibility tools and issues are discussed there. The channel recently had a conversation on September 30th about reformatting PDF archival finding aids (which are terrible for screen readers) as EPUB3 or Markdown/HTML pages.

Also, Lisa - thank you for championing accessibility considerations in GLAM technology. I agree that it is important. Also grateful to Artefactual for their work on accessibility improvements for AtoM 2. I am looking forward to participating in these conversations for AtoM 3.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.

[Corinne Rogers]

Thanks for sharing this Kelli!
Corinne

[Kelli Babcock]

Me again following up on AtoM web accessibility!

Can anyone point me towards a public link for the default "generate finding aid" xslt in AtoM?

I was only able to locate the French xslt on this page: https://wiki.accesstomemory.org/Community/Community_resources/Customization#Stylesheets

Our accessibility testing student has identified a few accessibility issues with the AtoM generated PDF finding aids. We would like to explore improving the xslt. 

I am also interested:

1. If any other archives have finding aid templates in Word format (or even Google Doc templates) that are *mostly* WCAG AA compliant and nicely web accessible for screenreaders?
2. If anyone has work flows to share for creating web accessible finding aids?

Thanks,

Kelli

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Kelli, 

Sounds like a great project!

Though they were not accessibility related, we have recently merged a few stylistic enhancements (summarized on this ticket) into the finding aid XSLTs, so I will point you to the most recent versions found in the 2.6 branch of our code repository: 

• https://github.com/artefactual/atom/tree/qa/2.6.x/lib/task/pdf  
  

If you wanted to save local copies you can:

• Click through to one of the primary XSLT files listed at the link above - for example, the ead-pdf-full-details.xsl
• Click the "Raw" button available in the header above where the code starts
• Right click and use the "Save as" option in your browser to save a local copy. 

Cheers, 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/c12fbbb3-01da-423b-873a-c586ac75119b%40googlegroups.com.

[Kelli Babcock]

Hi everyone,

I am sharing more web accessibility resources - hopefully these are helpful for Ontario institutions working towards WCAG AA compliance for the January 2021 AODA deadline, anyone improving the web accessibility of their AtoM site, or archivists interested in making web accessible PDFs. 

These resources were created by James Zahn, Web Accessibility Testing staff member at U of T Libraries, and shared with his permission:

• A report by James on accessibility issues he found in our AtoM instance and AtoM-generated PDFs: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1buT7X1aWCSwYqTKg8qb51AIO1RPwnSIowxnFCYbV7r0/edit?usp=sharing 
• Instructional video on completing AODA WCAG 2.0 audits: https://play.library.utoronto.ca/ff41430bbf29bf16ddeae6a461bfd2bd
• Instructional video on auditing websites with a screenreader: https://play.library.utoronto.ca/0a200a2eeea9a000e6d6835947090b9d
• The template we use for auditing websites: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JDD92SwxqV54CVSMg-ckeAgXVCs1gZGpUuHfN9LkNbA/edit?usp=sharing

These resources were created by Aneta Kwak, Accessibility and Public Services Librarian at U of T Libraries. Her documents outline best practices for creating accessible documents (and a useful tip on making sure you save a Word doc as an accessible PDF). For finding aids, it is usually easier to make a Word document accessible at the point of creation, rather than remediating a Word doc after it is converted to a non-accessible PDF. Aneta asked me to let the AtoM list know that she is available to answer any questions you might have about the presentation - her email is aneta.kwak [@] utoronto.ca.

• Creating accessible documents presentation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZK4QpSjqry1GCpDeyk5rmi-zOCjHrISn/view?usp=sharing
• Making accessible documents via Word on a PC: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15wih_-oG5KCDaaf9Rk8bshOwdsOJyk80/view?usp=sharing

Take care all,

Kelli

Kelli Babcock | she / her

Digital Initiatives Librarian 
Information Technology Services

University of Toronto Libraries
Discover Archives

Collections U of T

On Thursday, 19 September 2019 12:18:27 UTC-4, Kelli Babcock wrote:

[Dan Gillean]

Kelli, 

Thanks so much for sharing this incredibly useful analysis and list of resources! Hopefully it might lead to more accessibility-focused development in AtoM in the near future. 

In terms of the PDF finding aids - do you know if this analysis was done against 2.5 and earlier, or 2.6 finding aids? I know we fixed some ToC and bookmark issues in 2.6 that I'm hoping might at least help a little bit. 

Thanks again! 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/034e9059-f962-494b-9d15-45463b11d4f3o%40googlegroups.com.

[Kelli Babcock]

Hi Dan,

Sorry for the slow response. The PDF finding aids were tested on 2.5 (we're not able to move to 2.6 yet because of the MariaDB issue).

We'll be spending dev time on AtoM 2.5 accessibility remediation into the Fall and will be sure to share any other improvements that might be helpful to the community. 

Best,

Kelli

[Archeion Coordinator]

Hello everyone,

I would like to revive this conversation about accessibility in AtoM since we still have a long way to go before AtoM can be considered accessible. 

Is anyone currently working on accessibility in AtoM? Would anyone be interested in putting a group together for this purpose?

I know that everyone is busy, but it is critical that we make AtoM instances accessible for everyone (especially for those in Ontario governed by the AODA).

Feel free to reply to me here or send me an email directly.

Best,

Jazmine Aldrich

AAO Archeion Coordinator

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Jazmine, 

I have some updates that have happened in other venues since this thread's last message. 

In the upcoming 2.7 release, we have begun the process of upgrading one of AtoM's core libraries - the Bootstrap library, used to provide a CSS framework (and therefore impacting almost all of the user interface elements). In 2.6 and earlier we have been using Bootstrap 2.3.2 - which has been deprecated for some time now. 

In the 2.7 release, a new draft theme will be available that uses Bootstrap 5.1 for all UI elements, both public facing and internal. Because this massive update will be sure to break any existing custom themes, we have not removed Bootstrap 2 from AtoM just yet - and out of the box, the old BS2 theme will still be the default in new installations. This should allow users with a custom theme to treat 2.7 as a transitional version - you can access the BS5 templates and code, and as we prepare and release additional documentation to help, prepare an updated version of your custom theme in time for a 2.8 release, when we will fully remove the deprecated version. More information on all of this will be provided once the 2.7 release is made public - we are currently aiming for a public release before the end of 2022. 

In any case, one of our reasons for this move is because of the many accessibility enhancements included in BS5. There are also some minor accessibility enhancements submitted as a community pull request that will be included in 2.7 as well - see issue ticket #13535.  

Kelli managed to have some of colleagues do some accessibility testing on an early release candidate of 2.7. They found that the upcoming changes addressed and resolved 13 AA-level WCAG issues previously identified in 2.6. However, there were still 11 outstanding issues (including the PDFs) before AtoM would start approaching WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. 

We have an internal fix for one of those 11 issues (adding a Skip to main content option for improved keyboard navigation - pull request here) already prepared, but this late in the process it will not be included in 2.7.0 (we've passed code freeze and are prioritizing finalizing the release), so we will likely include it in one of the upcoming point releases (e.g. 2.7.1, etc). 

If I recall correctly, most of the other issues are small-medium sized, and hopefully shouldn't be too difficult to address. However, making the PDF finding aids accessible is much more complex, and will require careful analysis and a good amount of development to be able to implement properly. 

Now, the above information was based on one scan from one institution. One of the best ways I personally think a community effort could help would be to install 2.7 when it is released, using the new Bootstrap 5 theme, and then have your local accessibility experts perform their own review and analysis, before sharing any resulting report either here, or with Artefacutual directly. That way we can independently confirm any initial results (with different tools, different testers, different focuses, etc) as well as prioritize any outstanding issues that are confirmed by all. Artefactual does not have any in-house accessibility experts, so providing this would be hugely beneficial! Just a thought :)

In any case, I hope this update helps! 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/9be383e7-6e9b-41e1-85b6-7ca0b8bf1387n%40googlegroups.com.

[Archeion Coordinator]

Hi Dan,

Thanks so much for your quick response and for the update.

Archeion is currently running AtoM 2.7 in its early release phase. I am not a systems administrator (beyond grateful to have Artefactual for that) and I have not done any accessibility testing, but I am hoping to coordinate efforts with other AtoM users to move this work along. I will keep things rolling when it comes to Archeion's accessibility, but I hope that others in the AtoM community would like to share what they are doing and collaborate so that everyone can benefit from the effort invested.

Happy to connect with anyone else interested in moving this work forward!

Warmly,

Jazmine

[L Snider]

Hi Everyone,

I am just following up to see if there have been updates for the PDF finding aid accessibility? Or has anyone solved the inaccessibility of them in their AtoM instance?

Thanks

Lisa

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/029f5ebe-d49b-491e-a866-3bf343600782n%40googlegroups.com.

[Edward Warga]

Hi All,

I am just joining this thread. My institution now has requirements to conform to WCAG 2.1 AA standard for accessible web content and web apps. Is there a VPAT or accessibility reports available for AtoM (beyond the power point linked to above in this thread)? How have folks been responding to accessibility requirements and the use of AtoM at their institutions? Has anyone done any accessibility testing on AtoM recently? If nothing is available, I guess we will try to test/evaluate AtoM ourselves and let you all know what we find in 2025.

Thanks to everyone who contributes here, and hello to everyone who reads along!

Ed Warga

St. Cloud State University

[Kelli Babcock]

Hi all,

To answer Lisa about PDFs - in 2023-2024, the University of Toronto Libraries (UTL) worked with a developer consultant (Thomas - who is great!) to make some improvements to the structure of the PDF finding aids that result from when U of T archivists 1) add description data into our AtoM instance and 2) then use the AtoM "Generate PDF" button to create a PDF finding aid. I think this is the xsl that transforms AtoM EAD into a PDF finding aid in the AtoM public release and here is the version we tested with Thomas that is in current use in our AtoM 2.8.2 instance (one bug we haven't resolved locally yet is that, at the moment, it doesn't pull in the institutional logo into the generated PDF in our multi-repository AtoM instance). In the next little while I will follow up on contributing xsl improvements back to the AtoM public release - apologies it's taken me some time to come back to this project and share it here.

My colleagues Christina Cutler, Isobel Carnegie, and I also presented about this work to the Archives Association of Ontario Conference in 2024 - the Google slides, with notes and links, are here. Each of us work/worked in the Information Technology Services department at UTL and are not/were not archives staff at U of T - so the testing was completed with the intent of exploring technology tools for PDF remediation at the ITS service-level. This means that findings or priorities identified in our presentation may be different from what archivists would identify as priorities or lessons learned. I mention this because remediation of PDF finding aids is relative to an institution's staff capacity, work flows, and end-user needs. Our findings and recommendations may not be relevant to everyone's institutional context - this is described more in the slide notes but it is worth repeating here.

That said, generally, we found it was most cost effective to have actual human staff move the data out of the legacy PDF finding aids and into AtoM instead of investing labour into remediating individual legacy PDF finding aid documents. PDF remediation can be expensive and time consuming (even with batch remediation tools). Moving the data into AtoM can provide an improved web accessible version of the finding aid data, instead of the costly labour of one-time remediation of legacy PDFs that may, even after remediation, not be the best screenreader experience or preferred access method. Remediating PDFs also still doesn't result in structured finding aid data for an institution - and having structured finding aid data instead of flat PDFs can have future benefits or use for discovery or management of description data. Moving the data out of the PDF and into AtoM also includes other benefits such as: improved search engine optimization; better information retrieval within AtoM search; opportunity for re-description during data migration (pending archivist staff time); and improved long-term control over description data (as mentioned: structured, standards-based, AtoM data > PDF data). 

Of course, now that it is a year later since this research was completed, it is possible our time estimates and findings are outdated by new and better tools for PDF remediation - or PDF text extraction tools - than what we tested in 2023-2024. I haven't looked into PDF remediation tools since last April. I also would say that our research was limited in that we didn't have archivists do the remediation testing itself (but archives staff helped design the project description and identify PDFs for remediation testing). Also, no one involved in the project are web accessibility experts - though we did consult with U of T's web accessibility department about the project - and none of us require assistive technology in our day-to-day navigation of the web. We were also not able to complete end-user testing on remediation outputs with folks requiring assistive technology, unfortunately. We're always interested to know how other institutions are approaching legacy PDF web accessibility, and web accessibility in AtoM in general, so I'm happy to chat with anyone any time. 

To answer Edward about audits - the UTL ITS department also has some basic WCAG AA audits of past AtoM versions (but testing is on our local theme). We do not have an audit prepared for AtoM 2.9 yet. These audits are also limited in that they were completed by me or former graduate student assistants (so: very much not people who are web accessibility experts) - the testing documents are not really intended for public viewing but I'm happy to email copies of them for internal information-sharing purposes. If anyone would find them helpful, just email me. As Lisa mentioned above in this thread, WCAG AA compliance is also the bare minimum for AtoM and web accessibility. It would be great to have capacity for end-user testing with individuals who regularly using assistive technology to learn more about how AtoM does/does not meet their discovery needs for archival description. 

Anyway, lots of learning still to do around AtoM and web accessibility but hopefully this is a helpful update from where our team is at with working on AtoM and web accessibility.

Best,

Kelli

Kelli Babcock | she / her

Digital Initiatives Librarian 

kelli.babcock[at]utoronto.ca
Information Technology Services

University of Toronto Libraries
130 St. George Street | Toronto, Ontario 

Collections U of T
Discover Archives