Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


Procurement Resources

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

EOWG Internal Notes

This is an initial draft of a page that we might want to put on the WAI-Engage wiki.
(Pending actions)

Thoughts on pros, cons, issues:

  • summary — comment {name, 00-month-2014}
  • EOWG 28 March 2014 minutes
  • Participation — Since in the past, we have not been successful in getting much community participation, might we include a plan to do some specific outreach to people outside of EO? I am thinking of those who may be experienced in the procurement arena and willing to share resources, prompt additional participation, and act as even a kind of moderator. Any ideas for people to reach out to for that kind of role? {Sharron 3-April-2014}
    • +1 to Sharron's comment. A few simple phone calls to procurement departments at university campuses and other government organizations would probably yield a goldmine of feedback. I spoke with a CSU colleague at the CSUN conference who is responsible for such decisions on his campus (Fresno) and he was very forthcoming about some of the things he does. If we go this route, we should ask specific questions of each respondent. [Paul 10-April-2014]

Content:

  • Summary — Comment {name, 00-month-2014}
  • Organization — Do we want to list these by country? or by type of organization (university, governmental body, commercial, non-profit/NGO, etc.)? or other? or in a matrix that has both? {Shawn, 28-March-2014}
    • To my mind, organization by type of entity makes more sense than by country. {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
    • Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
  • Annotation — I think instead of just links, we want to include brief comments about each resource -- e.g., what type of organization it is for, if it have unique features, etc. {Shawn, 28-March-2014}
    • +1 Agreed {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
    • Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}

Misc:

  • Summary — Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
  • goals — one idea is to help procurement people have a basic understanding, and encourage them to work with developers and project managers who know more {Shawn, 01-April-2014}
    • An additional goal is to encourage the adoption or development of rubrics so that all buyers are talking the same language and have common understanding of accessibility requirements and how to meet them.{Sharron, 04-April-2014}
  • policy — maybe best to avoid the term "policy" in our text & headings -- so as not to confuse with our Policy resources. {Shawn, 01-April-2014}
    • Not sure I agree with this, since it is policy that most often drives the adoption of specific procurement practices. Need to help buyers feel that they have a place to stand when they make these requests of vendors, that they can refer back to an overarching policy for support of their accessibility requests to vendors. Is there another way to provide that? {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
  • Existing Resources — State IT database - maintained by Georgia Tech: http://accessibility.gtri.gatech.edu/sitid/stateLawAtGlance.php. Looks like it may have last been updated in 2009 {Howard, 4-April-2014}





Disclaimer

This is a community-generated web page with examples of procurement language to help build an accessible Web. These are not recommendations or endorsements from W3C or WAI, and should not be considered as legal advice. [internal note: above is based on language developed by W3C legal.]

Terminology

  • ATM = Approach to Market
  • ITT = Invitation To Tender
  • RFP = Request for Proposal
  • RFQ = Request for Quote
  • RFT = Request for Tender

Simple RFP Language

  • Web sites (including applications) will meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria. @@
  • Authoring tool / SMSs / LMSs will meet ATAG 2.0 Level AA. @@

Accessible Procurement Resources

EOWG: Add examples from countries other than the US

See list of some resources from GAAD Legal, especially Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland. Don't know enough about actual state of affairs within these coutries to confidently add them below [Liam, 11 April 2014]

Australia

Canada

European

India

U.S

Introduction (Background)

Consider providing within any solicitation or RFP document brief accessibility background information that references the applicable W3C accessibility standards. These might include:

Product/Service Evaluation

Accountability Language