Live captioning by Ai-Media MONICA OLSSON: OK! Alright, good morning everyone. It is nice to see you all here today. Thanks for coming to the April edition of the ctcLink Accessibility Open Forum. My name is Monica and I'm the accessibility policy associate at the state board. I have been here for 10 months and I cohost these monthly meetings. My colleagues from the state board are also here and I will turn it over to them in a second introduce themselves after I do a few housekeeping announcements. Number one, we are recording this meeting. Each recording is captioned and posted online for a playback or for review, on our CTC accessibility webpage. We do have a professional live captioner with us today, if you would like to use live captioning and follow along that way, please go ahead and click the 'live transcript cc button' at the bottom of your screen. If you do not see that, you might look for the three dots and it will give you a option to view live transcript. We do invite participants to unmute themselves and ask questions throughout our presentation. Our meeting is one hour long. We have a lot of content to get through today. If you are unable to or do not want to unmute yourselves, please feel free to put a question in the chat. We all do our very best to moderate the chat and follow along and make sure everyone gets their questions answered or comments heard, sometimes we miss something. We do not take defence again, without further ado, I will hand it over to Sandy. SANDY MAIN: Good morning, everybody. This is Sandy, Director of application services on the state board. I'm going to let everybody introduce us as we go through the agenda. We will start off today talk a little bit about our service desk that we use at the state board for reporting issues with ctcLink. We will go a little bit into that and Monica and I will talk a little bit about what the difference is when you talk about terms like testing and reporting issues, and Christopher's team, Christopher's team will talk about a little bit how we do accessibility reviews at the state board around ctcLink. They will go into the monthly focus group offered by Oracle for HCM, the national, I believe, that is the audience. If not, I'm sure it's worldwide but at least national. (Laughs) And then he will ? his team will go through and give an update on service desk tickets, or Oracle service requests have changed since the last time we met. That will be a little different in the way we present that and I will let him explain when we get a little farther into the presentation. I will go ahead and get started and I will introduce Johnathan. We have questions about the service desk ticketing systems. I wanted him to offer some feedback for you guys, or updates for you guys, and answer any questions. JOHNATHAN RIDER: Thank you, Sandy. My name is Johnathan and of the infrastructure state services officer at the state board. I oversee ? for the sake of this meeting, system administrators to manage the service desk for ctcLink. There has been complaints, as you guys are aware, of accessibility with the service desk. And trying to handle some of these, we have come up with a method to allow authorized ticket of submitters, trying to think of the right word to use. Somebody at a college who is authorized to enter a ticket on behalf of somebody else. To actually use emails, to get around the accessibility issues. I'm thinking really how to word this thing correctly. Essentially what we have done is created four email addresses that are able to be used depending on the pillar that the issue is in. An individual who is authorized to submit tickets can email to. Monica, do we have these on the slide deck? I do not know if those got updated. MONICA OLSSON: (Static) this is Monica, thanks again for being here. Those email addresses you are referencing are not in the slide deck as we posted the slide deck before our most recent email exchange. However, I did update the accessibility ticket guide document I will be sharing in just a moment to include those email addresses. If you would like, I can post a link to that guide right now so people could open it up and navigate through to see the email addresses. Would that be hopeful to you? JOHNATHAN RIDER: I think it's OK. We can talk about it, and if there's questions, we can answer it there. The email address is trying to come up with something simple or easy to remember. We came up with based on ticket accessibility, and the pillar. For instance, it would be TA CS for campus solutions, or TA HCM for human capital management, or FS for finance, and one for tech, TA tack. Those are@ctec.edu. What this does, and anybody who is able to submit a ticket on behalf of other people can send an email that they have an accessibility issue with using the ticket system. That will auto generate a ticket for that -- pillar, and one person moderating this and having to transfer tickets around, the campus solutions issue, you can send an email to pacs@cdc.edu and it will auto generate a ticket to the campus solutions pillar. Same thing for finance, HCM, and actual accessibility issues. For ctcLink, you could send an email to tatech@(Unknown Name).edu and this is a Band-Aid solution until we are able to switch off to a new service desk software and some of the people were talking about it, I think (Unknown Name) is on the same ticket system, and dealing with some of the accessibility issues with solar winds, CART has moved down to a new ticket system and I will reach out to them when we start working that ticket system. Essentially, as soon as all of the colleges are live, we will start with a project to be looking at transitioning onto a different ticket system. Which may take six months, or more, depending on the ticket system, we switch to. We have a lot of customizations in the current system to get us to where we are. But that is kind of the quick update at least with emails. The future of the service desk we will be looking at addressing that's probably around June ? MONICA OLSSON: Your camera froze. JOHNATHAN RIDER: (Laughs) So, any questions in general around the emails, or auto generating tickets? Or the future of the service desk software itself? I think that's all I have, Monica. MONICA OLSSON: OK, thanks again Johnathan. Before we move on to the piece I want to present and I will put a link in the chat to document that participants can open and view on their own computers if they want to, I will just quickly summarize again what he is helping to explain today. So people can hear it twice. We acknowledge there are accessibility concerns for our current ticketing platform. Right now, the intermediate solution that we have come up with to offer people who are authorized tickets and matters at the college campus is to use emails as an alternate option to submit ticketing information. And there are four email addresses created, one for each pillar that exists inside ctcLink. And one is for tech@ ... (Audio breaks up) and for those who have Access Living barriers they have concerns for and we also ignored people might have... (Static) not excessively questions around ctcLink in whatever pillar they are working with them, and therefore those other options exist as well. For you to use. The email addresses are in the guides which I will talk about and share, as Johnathan said before, in the future after we go live the agency will be investigating different ticketing platforms solutions. And ensure that accessibility is part of the formal review in choosing that option. Now you have heard that option twice... is there any questions for Johnathan or myself before we move on? Alright. We are going to move on. If you have other questions or comments you can use the chat feature as well. Since our last meeting in March, I worked to create a brief guide titled "How to submit an accessibility ticket" and let me go ahead and pause my speaking for a minute. I will copy paste a link to the document in chat so everybody can pull it up if they want to and follow along as I explain what it is, and why I created it, and how to use it. Just a moment. I'm working on a small laptop screen so I have to change my view. Coming back into Zoom. Going back to full screen. OK. I am putting a link in the chat that should take you to a viewable Google doc titled, "How to submit an accessibility ticket". I will continue with my presentation. At last month's meeting, I think it is been mentioned a couple times before in the open forums and certainly in conversations here and there with Cato or between myself and individuals. There might be some confusion on what information is required, or helpful to the agency once abutting accessibility concerns, or around a ctcLink for the services team hereto investigate and replicate the issue and document it with Oracle. When I was in a conversation with a colleague at Bellevue, it was a very enlightening conversation and she helped explain to me for those of you who are brand-new to ctcLink, so, who are just going through their deployment experiences, it can sometimes be hard to know, "wait, is this a true accessibility barrier that I am experiencing with my assistive technology?" Or, "I do not know how to quite do this inside ctcLink yet." Sometimes the steps can be a little confusing or we are not what, the most accurate instructions. Piecing that part of if this is is actual accessibility barrier can be a bit hard for the user, part of our state board on those tickets come in is to work with the user who submitted that ticket to help identify what the actual problem is. And how best to communicate that to Oracle depending on what is going on. In the document, it takes you through the steps on how to actually submit a ticket. By logging in and using solar winds if that's an option for you. It lists the different email alternative options that Johnathan spoke about a moment ago. Most importantly, this document helps break down into a list of items of the type of information or content that we at the state board really need that benefits us when there is an accessible to concern for an end user. This information such as, what assistive technology are you using? What pillar are you inside? What ctcLink page are you on? What task are you attempting to complete? What browser are you using? All of that information helps us test and replicate the issue, and take that information to Oracle for discussion and request for accessibility if there is an internal fix that the team can produce themselves. (Static) The goal for me for this document was not to over complicate things, but just to simply state: what is the information we need, if you can provide it to us? Obviously, if you cannot provide all of that information for some reason or another, we will still accept and review that information you provided. It might -- mean the team needs conversation back and forth with you to figure out what your experience is and the problem is. It also might mean that this it might be a little bit harder to replicate and prove the problem to Oracle. Before we move on, I will say the next topic we are going to discuss is Sandy and I will talk about the difference between the proactive and regular accessibility testing that state board staff are doing, versus the ticketing system. We do feel like there has been some confusion and its mushing of the two. We will move into that next. It is important for us to clarify the work we are doing outside in addition to reviewing tickets. Before I do that, does anyone have any questions, or comments about how to submit accessibility ticket guide, or Chris and Sandy do you have additional comments to share? CHRISTOPHER SORAN: This is Christopher. Sounds all good. We just want to be able to replicate on Oracle, and we appreciate all the details. MONICA OLSSON: Thanks, Chris. This is Monica. So, are there any guests out there today who have any questions, or comments about this information? Before we move on. Well, that's OK. I hope this information is helpful. To you all. Feel free to share this information with your colleagues ? it is not secret sauce, we are trying to always increase and be better with our transparency around what we are doing. How we are doing the work what we are doing, and what information we need from you, our colleagues, and users to do the best we can. My hope is ? and hopefully Sandy can give a nod of affirmation. My hope is in the near future we can make this information available publicly on our webpage so people do not have to rely on a Google doc. For now that is what we have and it's not secret sauce and you are free to share this information. OK. Now we are moving onto a conversation that Sandy and I will lead together. Discussing a little bit with the difference between accessibility testing, versus ticketing or reporting issues, and Sandy, I need to get some water. I've got a little bit of a rough voice this morning. Do you mind if I hand over to you for a moment? SANDY MAIN: No problem, this is Sandy, state board. The one thing I was sensing over the last few forums and other conversations is that I feel that maybe the state board did a disservice in explaining what we mean by... when we are asked for feedback from the colleges, or from different users and things on accessibility issues, and I personally just wanted to say, it's almost the last bullet in the bottom corner. Really, we are not asking for users to go out and review all of the functions and everything within ctcLink to find accessibility issues. There is processes that Christopher's team does and he will explain that shortly. But really, what we want to encourage people is to report issues when you are being told about them. Or you are experiencing them. That is just one of the feedback mechanisms that we use. We do our own internal evaluations and stuff like that. But we really rely on the feedback and experiences from the colleges. This is no different than anything else happening within ctcLink. We do have that expectation of our users when they experience an error message, or if they experience -- odd behaviour when they are doing their normal day-to-day such as trying to enter a leave and I'm getting this response. It is the responsibilities of those users if you experience something, please report it. We cannot fix something we do not always know about. It is almost impossible, you know how large ctcLink is. We cannot individually touch every piece. We have to look at the whole group on it. Monica can jump in anytime. Christopher's team will go through and talk about the proactive approaches we take to testing the entire ctcLink at the different phases that we go through on updates. Also, kind of reactive. What happens when we do hear about issues on that, and testing also comes in the form of... We have a fix, Oracle has a fix and we have applied it, there are situations where it's easy to say, "Checkbox. It's easy we have accomplished addressing the issues with that" There are situations where we need somebody else to give that validation. Is this really addressing it to the full extent? We can say by reporting to the laws, and then I regulations, yes, it is right. Is it really addressing the issues? Sometimes we go out and request that end-users help us with the testing. That is kind of within the framework on the reporting. We do it for everything ? please report if you find stuff. It talks about how we do it. Refer to Monica's guide. I'm calling it Monica's guide. (Laughs) That's what is dubbed on the webpage, "Monica's guide." (Laughs) That is all about the reporting and ticketing system. Let us know. That is the greatest feedback. I get a little bit of great pleasure, and I hope Oracle is not listening, when we can go out and Christopher teams goes at them and is like, "Fix this!" And we have this, it is real life issues we can come to them... I get excited when I hear about all the work his team is doing with Oracle, and trying to get them to address our needs. Everybody's needs. Monica, did you want to add anything? MONICA OLSSON: Thanks, Sandy, I am back. I have a couple minutes of a speaking voice. I think you did justice in explaining the contents that we are trained to clarify. I think the main message for our listeners today is in addition to inviting our colleagues and users of ctcLink to submit tickets when they are encountering a problem in ctcLink, and that is not just accessibility barriers. It could be any type of user experience issue that may not have anything to do with accessibility. That Chris's team, the ops services team is working hard to do as much proactive testing and evaluation as possible. On top of reviewing tickets, propagating those columns -- problems and communicating with Oracle. He will explain the processes and what they look like. He will talk about accessibility testing and functional accessibility testing and where the teams priorities are right now. Please pay attention to that. It is important to understand those basic concepts. The slide also says on the left-hand column under testing that slide 15 provides more information about the proactive testing methods. If you want to read on your own after today's presentation you are welcome to do so. On the other column on the right-hand side on the screen, slide 16 and 17 provides more information about the reporting and ticketing process. I see that Makin asked a question in the chat. I will read it out loud. (Reads) How would a student report an accessibility issue? That's a great question. We also have the reality of authorized tickets and versus somebody who is not. I'm hoping that Johnathan and Sandy can speak to this question together. SANDY MAIN: This is Sandy. Just like other issues reported by students, the first line of reporting or identifying is to work with the local service desk, or help desk. However they are classified on the campus. That is the process. On campus, I assume you have your own mechanism for people to report or students to report. Whatever various departments on campus, the first mode of reporting will always be at the college level. And those issues that are not able to resolve are locally then escalated into the ticketing system. That is authorized by ticket users on campus. Every campus has their own set up on how to do that. Johnathan, if you have more to offer, I'm sorry to put you on the spot but not sure if you have more. We could have some clarification on that. JOHNATHAN RIDER: I think you hit the nail on the head there. I will regurgitate what Sandy said. The issue we have is we do not really allow people to submit tickets. In the ticket system. Unless they are an authorized approver at the campus. A lot of the work we did creating email addresses was all based on authorized tickets submitters at the college. This should work with the local college and there are people at the college who are allowed to open up tickets who have been approved by a project manager, or expert, or security to open up tickets on behalf of people. Those are the people the state board typically works with. MONICA OLSSON: Thanks, Johnathan. This is Monica. I will reiterate that every college has an assigned ctcLink manager and that person is an either/or authorized ticket submitter and we will know who those staff are at an individual college. I recognize this creates some extra work or steps to get information from the student. And because the student cannot submit the ticket directly themselves, I'm wondering if that is part of your concerns, Megan. I do not know. I do see your second comment, (Reads) Often students do not want to disclose their disability status but what if they did want to report an issue? I think that is still very much an option within this current system. Nowhere in the "How to submit an accessibility ticket" do we ask for somebody's disability information. We do not need to know the students name, or disability status, to understand what the user experience barrier is. We do need to know what assistive technology that person is using inside ctcLink and what they were trying to complete so we can investigate the issue. I imagine in reality, most likely what is going to happen and this might not be, you know, what some of us at the state board in vision, but since I was in a disability service office I imagine what most likely what will happen is students with disabilities who want to report accessibility issues with ctcLink are most likely going to share their experience with the disability office first, if they are already connected with that office. In which case, we would ask those staff forward that information to -- an authorized ticket system, solar winds ticket system, if they can use it, or using the emails we can provide so our staff can review the ticket. That is a few extra steps and perhaps most the direct way to hear from students, but I'm acknowledging that, and I hope this answers your question, Megan. SPEAKER: Thank you. JOHNATHAN RIDER: This is Johnathan and I want to say one more thing. The problem is we are not staff to support taking tickets from the students, nor can we really have a way to identify who the student really is. That is why we have them use the local helpdesk's, so the college can validate the student, who they are, we do not want to go around resetting accounts or passwords for people we cannot validate. That is why we push it back to the college's responsibilities to support the students. MONICA OLSSON: It may be that... (Static) this is Monica speaking. It may be for those of you who will take this information and digest it back it with your colleagues at the college, there may need to be messaging put up to the student so they understand who to contact when they have issues with ctcLink, that may be helpful to understand what the process of the local college is to get that information heard. And submitted to the state board. I would encourage folks to take this information back to their college campus for discussion to connect with their project managers about this. I'm seeing a couple more comments in the chat. Chris said, (Reads) Sometimes we never hear back from them after that. That is certainly a challenge when we get initial information for student and are unable to follow up with them for more information about their user experience, and we actually just experienced that with information reported by someone else from a different college from a student, and it was difficult for our team to replicate the issue because of all of the various options happening on that page. So, yes. That is a real problem. Megan had a comment about tracking things, thanks for the info. OK! I think we are ready to move on to Chris's section. I will hand it over to you, Chris. Thanks. CHRISTOPHER SORAN: Good morning, I'm Christopher, and the applications support manager. I will talk about all the different pieces here, proactive, reactive, continuous, and one thing I learned at the conference, I'm just describing the area I am in, I am in my mid 30s white male with a short beard and hair, and my background I have a background with my kids art on it and you will find a wheelchair, and a window. I am working with a great team, we are fixing the accessibility stuff in these three main ways. The proactive piece is every time we go through new images, where there is HCM, finance, campus solutions, they all have bug fixes, new features, and within those, it is not always tagged very well with accessibility fixes, we are going in and reviewing that to make sure it actually fixes what it says it fixes. We are going through review of HC X with 22.1 and reviewing the accessibility fixes. We are looking ahead and attending these monthly meetings with Oracle and Josh touched on that in the next slide. All the things that are coming like future people tools versions, and we are testing all these bug -- fixes and accessibility fixes and make sure they are working as they should, and anything we might run across. If we experience some sort of accessible to the issue on a page or reviewing code somewhere and see there is a missing label we will open something up. Based on the knowledge our staff have, we cannot interact with every single page, but whatever we see we report to. The reactive piece is we take it in, we get a ticket, we hear from somebody that something is wrong, and we will review that. Is that a customized page? Can we as a state board work on the development to get that fixed? Or will we have to work with Oracle on that? Usually we have to work with Oracle on that, and that is where all those details, they will ask us to replicate it. We can show them, here is what they were doing, they were using the JAWS screen reader, and you can see the tab index is out of order. We will show them in screenshots, or video, or show them the code and how it needs to get fixed. That is for all those details are for the those are the proactive things and we will keep on them to get that fixed. And the continuous piece is just we meet monthly also to talk about all of the open service requests we have with Oracle related to accessibility. And continuing to keep pushing them to get those fixes to us as soon as we can. So, if you see something, let us know. I would love to press Oracle to fix it. (Laughs) I will also talk about ? our development process... in the bottom half of the slide there. We take that fix we get from Oracle, or a custom fix we make, and we apply that to our development environment. Let's say the issue was a tab index out of order, we will open up Chrome or ?- Firefox, open up JAWS, we will interact with that and make sure the tab index is where it should be. (Laughs) Our main focus is to make sure the code is compliant. Did Oracle introduce the right code to get this in line with the guidelines? We will take a look at the code, and see if it did the thing. For example, we got a fix from Oracle. We applied it to the Test Environment and it did not fix it. He said, hey, this did not fix it. They came back and gave us a new fix and it did fix it. It resolved an issue come in one of the slides later in finance. And then we are going to get that. Once we confirmed through our unit testing and development environment, we will get into our test environment. That is for the state board functional teams will do some regression testing around this. When we introduce this fix, did it break anything else when you make sure everything works? And that it fixed the accessibility issue. In that environment, once you get into the quality insurance environment, that is for our testing team will work with the person who made the report, this is the problem. They will schedule a time and date to meet with you and do screen share, and you can confirm, this did fix the thing I reported. And then we are going to ? if they confirm that it is fixed and does not need any new redevelopment or go back to Oracle, we will get it into our production environment where everybody will see the changes. We cycle through this development process not just for accessibility fixes but for all of the development fixes. That is our process. Is there any questions on that? SANDY MAIN: Christopher, I will jump in here. This is Sandy with the state board. As he was going to the proactive, reactive, and continuous items, there is a link on our slide deck that will take you to the end of the presentation, or the whole thing that goes into each one of these things into greater detail. It is hard to go through all of it right now but I think you did cover everything in your conversation. I want to let everyone know, at the slide deck all of the information is (Indiscernible). I want to jump into the section with testing with end-users. There are times we are not able to get the end user to participate in validating the fix addresses their issue they reported. Sometimes it is obvious for us that it has a fix. I would say this is on a case-by-case basis, when we have to go back to the user. That is true even outside of accessibility-related issues that we fix. Sometimes it is an obvious thing. And we can go ahead and move it into production and sometimes we want that extra validation. We will take on those case-by-case. Did you want us to go and jump to the next section? Josh? MONICA OLSSON: Thanks, Sandy. This is Monica ? thank you, Chris, for that information. Does anyone have any questions or comments around this development cycle and information around testing processes that Chris explained? The team's main priority and focus is to evaluate for conformance. Compliance with (Unknown Name) standards. We are moving on to the next slide. JOSH GIHA: I will introduce the slide. My name is Josh. I am a software developer at the state board. One of the things we have ? I guess it has become a fortunate thing for us is over the past year, we got to have meetings. With Oracle, I guess higher-ups, there is a VP of software development in the HCM product for Oracle, PeopleSoft that we have been having these monthly focus groups with them. That has been going on for the past year or so now. It includes all of the PeopleSoft HCM product customers. PeopleSoft is a really big product. A lot of the customers are not just institutions. They offer the HCM and finance products alone, so that you have companies that not necessarily are in education using those products as well. They are invited to the focus group. That tends to be ? what happens at these focus groups is... a ticket gets brought up by maybe, or sent to Oracle through their service desk. It will end up being something that affects the HCM, or the product globally. And then they may have questions to see if their approach to fixing, or addressing the problem is adequate. And they may bring that to the larger group. An example of that which is actually the first bullet point of the slide is provide concurrent HTML and PDF W-2 versions in addition to properly tagged PDF. This issue is... it revolves around the W-2 and the HCM products. Our HCM pillar. The W-2s that were printed out, via PDF, they were not tagged properly. When we submitted the issue to Oracle as a ticket, there was pushback. They said that the product was controlled by third-party companies that is integrated into PeopleSoft, and they have no control over making sure those PDFs are tagged properly. We said that was unacceptable, pretty much. That was also the sentiment of the other customers in the attending focus group. Which include... Like, whole state agencies, Massachusetts, other institutions like Harvard or Texas universities, so, in Texas, they brought to their attention through... a ticket as well that the HTML version of the W-2 was inadequate, and there were some issues there. During the focus group, they brought both of these issues to everybody's attention. They said they actually had some solutions which included ? they got in contact with that third party company to get us a tag version. They gave us some updates on when we will be seeing the changes to the HTML version of W-2. To be addressed. That is basically how the meetings go. They go into other items that we will be seeing in either future HCM products, or-- future -- people tools which is the future of PeopleSoft. If something is something that is global, that might be in the people tools area. They will tell us when we can expect to see that update come through, or what people tools version we can expect to see that update. Going down through this slide again, the second issue issue that we are lacking is it skips to main content. In most sites, you have the "Skip to main content" as soon as you get to the page, you are able to skip straight to the main content of the page. It will be introducing that. Another issue they brought to the group was prompt lookups in fluid, like, the initial searches in the search results. It is not as robust as we see in standard products across the World Wide Web these days. When no rows are found, we expect the screen reader to announce that, and these are some of the topics they brought to the group and asked our opinions, and told us pretty much when we can expect to see changes and that will be in the future people's tools release which I believe they said was April 6. These will be in the larger, more specific ? I'm calling it a one pager but it will probably be longer than that. There is a lot of details from the focus group updates that we've had over the past year. I will be including that in the release on the ctcLink webpage. Along with the slide, shortly. If we can move to the next page, this was the past issues and the future proposals that we are still having discussions on which include disability legends, or symbols utilized that are not expanded visually before the user encounters them. Examples would be the asterisk being used to indicate required fields. That seems like common sense, but it is something that needs to be submitted as a ticket and discussed as a larger group. The next bullet point being read any important status message displayed as text to the user so that it does not ? to the user, they do not receive focus. So, if we get a success message that said "The action you are performing on that page saved successfully." We expect that to be read to the screen reader, and currently it does not. Incorporate invisible headers that can be found by assistive technology. For all instructions, important statuses, and other critical information displayed as text on the page. This goes back to making sure that you have well-formed content, and using your headers, and your heading levels correctly. That kind of had to be a conversation over a couple forum groups. A lot of the stuff can be fixed pretty easily if we just follow the guidelines and used heading levels appropriately. Provide consistent and predictable initial focus across the self-service transactions. This is kind of across-the-board, each team, or each area in the self-service areas do things differently. As soon as you get to a page, we want... they notice it is kind of overboard with the initial focus on the page. They agreed that it should be when you are in a self-service area, there is a back button in the top left corner of the page, and that is universal across all the self-service areas. They decided that this is the initial focus point since it is consistent and predictable. The next bullet point is include examples for text input where specific formats are required, and invited the will be moving forward with those, and making sure the contrast ratio is appropriate with those. A lot of times when you use placeholders, and put the formats in the placeholders, the contrast ratio for the text is not usually up to standard. They will make sure the adjacent pillars contrast ratio 4.5 to 3.1. Another being the drop down box approach for input which immediately triggers significant changes of content on the page without the user's knowledge. In the report time area, you can pick ? you can select an option in the drop-down and it will change the whole page without acknowledging the user. Especially if you use a screen reader, you can see how that is a significant issue. They have acknowledged that and they are working on remediating that issue. These are all good things that we will improve usability for everyone. Not just people who use assistive tech and I'm glad to see us moving forward with these. MONICA OLSSON: Thanks so much, Josh, for going into detail with us around these technical conversations with Oracle. I really appreciate it and your last comment around how these improvements and fixes are going to provide a much better user experience for everyone. Not just folks with disability who uses AT. I'm thinking about the example on the page that says when a specific format is required to enter information such as date, etc, many of us have had the experience regardless of our disability status, where we are trying to fill out a form or something online and we need to put in a phone number or email address, or date in a very specific format, and we keep getting an error message or told we cannot submit our form as completed. It doesn't explain what we have done wrong or the required format, and although that is a technical accessibility requirement, and guideline, it actually is a great example of universal design. As are many of these. I really appreciate you going into more technical detail with everyone. For those of you on the call today, does anyone have any questions or comments for Josh? And the work they urging with Oracle? -- Doing with Oracle? Part of that work is... part of that technical work they are doing with Oracle is really education and advocacy, and helping their team understand accessibility and the user experience in ways that they maybe do not even know they should. JOSH GIHA: Yes, I could not agree with that more. Like you said, a more detailed version of the conversations and the bullet points from our monthly focus groups will be put on the website as a separate document from the slide deck. And that will be by the end of this week. MONICA OLSSON: Right on. I will take a moment to plug something that we talked about last month is Sandy and I are now moderate an elist called ctcLink Accessibility, and anyone can sign up to be on that e-list. On this information comes up in the week I will make sure to let everyone know on the list it is available. CHRISTOPHER SORAN: This is Christopher. It has been fun and interesting to see how our issues we have reported through the service request have bubbled up into these national conversations they are preventing in places. Our assistance and conversations with them, as we all learn collectively, makes the system more accessible fair for everybody. It has been fun to see. This is the last one. The fix for the incorrect PDF tags and Academic Advisement Report shifted from CS image 26 from 25, and with the FIN travel authorizations, we went back and forth to see if it did the thing and it didn't, so we came back, they give us another one and fix it, we did our initial testing on it and we will post the new one. This will be another focus where we are kind of showing what has changed since last month. At the end of the slide deck, we have all the lists of currently open things we are working through them. We will focus on those changes. That is what shifted from last month. SANDY MAIN: Monica, this is Sandy. I think that is the end of what we had scheduled to present on. MONICA OLSSON: You are correct. We are at time -- that went by superfast. Thank you all for being here, more information be available at the end of this week and we will put more information about submitting accessibility tickets on our webpage, and the other thing I want to mention is I have received personally some feedback from colleagues at various colleges that we use a lot of different terminology in these conversations, or acronyms that can be confusing if you are not using them everyday. We are currently working on the glossary of terms that we will share with everyone to help make sure we remain on the same page. For example, what is an IOVD and why should you care about that? Sandy, what is the next date of our meeting in May? SANDY MAIN: I have it, I think it is May 10. MONICA OLSSON: There you go ? cool! We will see everyone for our next meeting May 10 at 11:00 AM. We will end the recording and say goodbye. Live captioning by Ai-Media