The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

December 12, 2014

James P. Tressel

President

Youngstown State University

One University Plaza

Youngstown, Ohio 44555

Re: Case No. 15-13-6002

Youngstown State University

Dear Mr. Tressel:

This is to advise you of the resolution of the above-referenced compliance review that was 

initiated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), on May 6, 2013. 

OCR reviewed the accessibility of Youngstown State University (University)’s website to 

persons with disabilities, particularly those with sensory impairments who might require the use 

of assistive technology to access the sites.

OCR initiated this review under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, and Title II of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its 

implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

disability in programs or activities receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) and by certain public entities. As a recipient of financial assistance 

from the Department and as a public entity, the University is subject to Section 504 and Title II.

During the course of this investigation, OCR identified compliance violations relating to the 

University’s nondiscrimination notice, as well as the accessibility of particular pages on the 

University’s website. Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation of the remaining issues in 

its review, the University expressed an interest in voluntarily resolving the investigation and 

entered into an agreement that commits the University to specific actions to address those issues. 

This letter summarizes the applicable legal standards, the information gathered during the 

investigation, and how the investigation was resolved. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, REGION XV

1350 EUCLID AVENUE, SUITE 325

CLEVELAND, OH 44115

REGION XV

MICHIGAN

OHIO
Page 2 – James P. Tressel

Legal Standards

The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4, provides:

(a) General. No qualified person with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded 

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under 

any program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance.

(b) Discriminatory actions prohibited. (1) A recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, 

may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of 

disability:

(i) Deny a qualified person with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the 

aid, benefit, or service;

(ii) Afford a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the 

aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others;

(iii) Provide a qualified person with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as 

effective as that provided to others;

(iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to persons or to any class of persons 

with disabilities unless such action is necessary to provide qualified persons with disabilities 

with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others;

****

(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified person with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, 

advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving an aid, benefit, or service. 

****

(4) A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or 

methods of administration (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified persons with disabilities 

to discrimination on the basis of disability, (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or 

substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program or activity 

with respect to persons with disabilities, or (iii) that perpetuate the discrimination of another 

recipient if both recipients are subject to common administrative control or are agencies of the 

same State.

The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.43, provides that no qualified 

student with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, “be excluded from participation in, 

denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any...postsecondary 

program or activity....” 
Page 3 – James P. Tressel

The regulation implementing Title II, at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, has requirements similar to those in 

the regulation implementing Section 504. Additionally, the regulation implementing Title II has 

specific requirements for communication, which, in pertinent part, require that:

A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, 

participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as 

communications with others. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(1).

Entities subject to Title II are required to provide equally effective communication, regardless of 

the medium chosen for their communication. Communication by educational institutions 

includes the transfer of information and encompasses information conveyed through computerrelated applications and online learning environments.

OCR and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, issued a Dear Colleague Letter 

to college and university presidents on June 29, 2010 (June 2010 DCL). The letter states that 

requiring use of an emerging technology in a classroom environment when the technology is 

inaccessible to an entire population of individuals with disabilities—e.g., individuals with visual 

disabilities—is discrimination prohibited by Title II and Section 504 unless those individuals are 

provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational 

benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner. 

Specifically, the June 2010 DCL explains that the educational institution must ensure that 

students with disabilities can access the educational opportunity and benefit with “substantially 

equivalent ease of use” as students without disabilities.

OCR issued another Dear Colleague Letter on May 26, 2011 (May 2011 DCL), along with a

questions and answers document (FAQ), to provide further clarification regarding the June 2010 

DCL. The FAQ clarifies that students with disabilities, especially visual impairments, are to be 

afforded “the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and 

enjoy the same services as sighted students.” The FAQ also clarifies that an accommodation or 

modification that is available only at certain times (such as an aide to read to the student) will not 

be considered “equally effective and equally integrated” where other students have access to the 

same information at any time and any location, as is the case with a website or other online 

content. The May 2011 DCL states that online programs are also covered and stresses the 

importance of planning to ensure accessibility from the outset. 

While the May 2011 DCL and FAQ focus primarily on electronic book readers, the principles 

articulated in the documents apply to all forms of information technology. For instance, the 

FAQ cites as an example a school using a webmail system, stating that the system needs to be 

accessible to students through the use of screen reading technology. Ultimately, recipients and 

public entities must ensure equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by 

the technology and equal treatment in the use of the technology for all students, including 

students with disabilities.

In addition, the regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a), states that a 

recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its 

efforts to comply with regulation; the regulation implementing Title II contains a similar 
Page 4 – James P. Tressel

provision at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a). The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. 

§104.8(a), provides that a recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall take appropriate 

initial and continuing steps to notify participants, beneficiaries, applicants, and employees, 

including those with impaired vision or hearing, and unions or professional organizations 

holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not 

discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. The notification is required to 

state, where appropriate, that the recipient does not discriminate in admission or access to, or 

treatment or employment in, its program or activity. The notification must also include an 

identification of the responsible employee designated pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a). The 

regulation implementing Title II contains a similar notice requirement for public entities at 28 

C.F.R. § 35.106. The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. §104.8(b), states that if 

a recipient publishes or uses recruitment materials or publications containing general information 

that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, applicants, or employees, it shall include the 

notice of nondiscrimination in those materials or publications. The regulation implementing 

Title II contains a similar requirement at 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

Overview of the University

Youngstown State University is a public university in northeastern Ohio with an enrollment for 

2013-2014 of 13,381 students.1 According to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS) website at nces.ed.gov, the University reported that in 20112, 5% of its 

undergraduate students were registered with the University’s disability services office. 

The University maintains an overall website that contains information for current students, 

faculty, staff, alumni, and visitors. The website includes information for prospective students 

with respect to submission of online applications for admission; as well as information 

concerning its academic program, financial aid, library services, disability services, health 

services, housing, dining, recreation, and athletics. The University also utilizes course 

management software, Blackboard, which is a learning and communication system for course 

delivery and management. 

In addition to the University’s website, the University operates an online distance learning 

program, which includes peer-to-peer and faculty-student engagement via online postings and 

access to readings and exams. According to IPEDS, as of fall 2013, 3% of the University’s 

undergraduate students were educated solely online through distance education programs, as 

were 13% of its graduate students. Additionally, 13% of its other undergraduate students and 

5% of its other graduate students received some of their education online. 

Summary of Review

In its investigation, OCR reviewed documentation provided by the University, including the 

University’s policies related to the creation of websites. OCR also interviewed staff directly 

involved in overseeing the University’s website, procuring software and technology, and 

working with students with disabilities. In addition, OCR contacted students with visual and 

 

1

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/FastFacts.pdf.

2 This is the most recent data available on IPEDS.
Page 5 – James P. Tressel

hearing disabilities who were registered with the University’s disability services office for the 

2011-2012 and/or 2012-2013 academic years, and interviewed the nine students who responded 

to OCR contacts. OCR also reviewed a sampling of the University’s web pages to determine 

whether the pages are accessible to users with disabilities through the use of assistive 

technology; including but not limited to the University’s homepage and pages related to financial 

aid, disability services, distance education, housing, and registration. 

Information Obtained by OCR

Section 504/Title II Coordinator(s)

The University identified two Section 504/Title II coordinators—one for students and one 

for employees. The identified student coordinator is the assistant director of disability 

services. The identified employee coordinator is the chief human resources (HR) officer. 

The University also noted that the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Policy 

Compliance is responsible for responding to complaints of discrimination by students, 

employees, or third parties. Accordingly, OCR determined that the University is in 

compliance with the regulations implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a), and 

Title II at 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), because the University has designated at least one 

person to coordinate its efforts to comply with regulations. 

Nondiscrimination Notice

The University informed OCR that its notice of nondiscrimination is published through the 

Office of Disability Services in a brochure, and in its “Americans with Disabilities Act” policy 

(ADA policy); however, the brochure did not include a specific notice of nondiscrimination. The 

identified student coordinator’s contact information is made available through the brochure. The 

coordinator’s contact information is also readily available on the University’s main disability 

services web page; however, she is not specifically identified as the Section 504/Title II 

coordinator there.3

The University also provided OCR with a copy of its ADA policy, which only prohibits 

discrimination in the workplace on the basis of disability and requires the University to provide 

appropriate employment accommodations to employees with disabilities. This policy does not 

state that the University does not discriminate on the basis of disability in all programs and 

activities, and thus does not comply with the notice requirements set forth in the regulations 

implementing Section 504 and Title II. OCR also found a notice in the “University Guidebook,” 

which is available on the University’s website. The Guidebook identifies the Director of the 

Office of Equal Opportunity and Policy Compliance as the administrator of the University’s 

“Discrimination/Harassment” policy; however, it does not specifically indicate that this person is 

the Section 504/Title II coordinator.4 OCR also identified a nondiscrimination notice on the 

University’s Equal Opportunity and Policy Compliance web page. That web page specifically 

 

3

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Disability_Services_m695.html.

4

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/DiscriminationHarrasment_m4211.html.
Page 6 – James P. Tressel

identifies the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Policy Compliance as the Section 

504 Coordinator.5

The University’s online undergraduate admission application contained an appropriate notice of 

nondiscrimination,

6

but the graduate admission application did not contain any notice of 

nondiscrimination.7 Online job vacancy information also did not include a notice of 

nondiscrimination.

8

Based on the above, OCR determined that the University has not published appropriate notices 

of nondiscrimination in at least some of the materials and publications containing general 

information that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, applicants, or employees as 

required by the regulations implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §104.8(b) and Title II at 28 

C.F.R. § 35.106. Additionally, notices that the University provided did not always include an 

identification of the responsible employee designated pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a) and 28 

C.F.R. § 35.106. Accordingly, OCR determined that the University is in violation of the 

regulations implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7(a) and 104.8(b) and Title II at 28 

C.F.R. § 35.106.

University Use of Digital Information Technology

The University uses a variety of systems to convey digital information. A number are 

proprietary; that is, the University purchased the right to use them from outside vendors and uses 

them without modification. For example, students use the self-service portal part of a software 

program called Banner, where they register for courses, access unofficial transcripts, and see 

their grades. Information provided by the University supports that the University has not run 

accessibility checks on that system. The University uses Blackboard9as its learning 

management system (LMS). Blackboard can serve as a platform for delivering online courses, 

can store and manage course content, and can assist with assessing student achievement. The 

University’s Information Technology Services Department (IT Department) does not test 

Blackboard for accessibility, but trains staff members responsible for the site. The University 

also uses Microsoft 365 to deal with functions such as electronic mail (e-mail), instant 

messaging, video conferencing, and file sharing. In addition, Starfish performs functions relating 

to student retention. The University also utilizes ContentM, “a content management system 

[CMS] specialized to help departments, professors and offices update the content of their 

websites without having the technical knowledge of HTML or web design.”10 The University 

uses various systems relating to library resources.

Further, the University maintains its own general website, which includes links to various 

department sites and other information. The University’s website also includes links to 

 

5

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Section_504_Coordinator_m4227.html.

6

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/How_to_Apply_m140.html

7

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Domestic_Admissions_m2652.html

8

https://jobs.ysu.edu/postings/search?utf8=✓&query=&query_v0_posted_at_date=&1237=&query_organizational_ti

er_3_id=any&commit=Search

9

See http://www.blackboard.com/ for source information.

10 http://web.ysu.edu/cmtraining
Page 7 – James P. Tressel

accessibility-related training, a link to the University’s Accessibility Guidelines, and tips for a 

successful website that include accessibility topics.

University staff informed OCR that the University makes approximately 50 to 60 computer labs 

around campus available for student use, with work stations that are wheelchair accessible and 

include computers with software needed for students with vision impairments. Finally, the 

University offers courses to students through distance education.

Web-Accessibility Policies and Provision of Training

The University provided OCR with copies of its policies and procedures relating to the creation, 

modification, and editing of websites, online courses, and systems. The web policy, University 

Guidelines 5015.01, entitled “University Websites,” states that University divisions and 

departments may develop official University web pages, but that approval must be secured 

through a department or chair before publishing official pages; that all official and Universityrelated pages must adhere to copyright laws, state law, and University policies and accessibility 

guidelines; and that faculty, staff, and student organizations may develop University-related web 

pages. The policy requires all websites being linked to an official University website or those 

residing on a server maintained by the University to abide by parameters as indicated in the 

University’s Use Of University Computing Resources (4009.01)11 OCR was able to locate the 

“University Websites” policy easily when searching from the University’s home page. 

University staff informed OCR that when the policies are updated or changed, a University-wide 

e-mail announcement is sent to the campus community.

The University also has a specific set of guidelines concerning web access12 posted on its 

website that it has drawn from standards for web access set forth in Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act (Section 508), 29 U.S.C. § 794d, as amended, and the World Wide Web 

Consortium (W3C)’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG; jointly, the “accessibility 

standards”).13 The University guidelines specify basic, required accessibility measures related to 

identifying graphics, photographs, and links; appropriate document formats; handling tables and 

contrast; and using YouTube for video uploading and captioning. In 2013, the University 

updated these standards by prohibiting the addition to the website of new documents in Portable 

Document Format (PDF)

14 as these pose accessibility-related challenges. OCR was able to 

locate the guidelines easily when searching from the University’s home page.

 

 

11 Policy 4009.01 requires all users of University owned technology resources, among other things, to “comply with 

all federal, Ohio, and other applicable law; as well as applicable regulations, contracts, and licenses;” and to 

“comply with all applicable policies at Youngstown State University.”

12 http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Accessibility_Guidelines_m2997.html

13 Conforming to Section 508, WCAG, or other accessibility standards used to evaluate digital information access 

does not ensure compliance with Section 504 or Title II. Use of such standards may, however, assist institutions by 

serving as a guide to help assess whether individuals with disabilities can receive all the benefits provided by 

technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.

14 Portable Document Format (PDF) is an image-based document that is often unreadable by screen reading 

technology.
Page 8 – James P. Tressel

Information provided by the University supports that faculty and students can obtain personal 

web space on University servers, but have to follow the guidelines (as do faculty, students, 

student organizations, and staff who may develop and maintain University web pages), but there 

is no ongoing monitoring process in place to make sure they are following the guidelines. The 

IT Department does not check material for accessibility before that material is posted, because 

staff members assume the guidelines were followed. University staff members indicated that 

they were not aware of whether the University monitors whether students have access issues, nor 

were University staff members interviewed aware of complaints filed during the 2013-2014 

academic year.

OCR located no information on the University’s Disability Services Office (DSO) pages that 

related to accessibility of its websites, nor any references to web accessibility policies, either 

through direct notification or through cross-references or links. Links from the DSO home page 

included notice that the University has adaptive technology computer work stations, which 

contain software programs such as Jaws 4.0 and Zoom Text to assist those with vision-related 

disabilities. These stations are available on the fourth floor of the University’s Maag Library and 

at the DSO, although University staff informed OCR that software can be downloaded anywhere.

University staff members interviewed were unaware of any campus-wide training on web 

accessibility. The IT Department is responsible for training content editors—persons designated 

by a department or unit who are responsible for maintaining website content—to make them 

aware of the University’s web access policies, but not all University staff go through the training 

provided to content editors. Staff informs new faculty of the need to make materials accessible 

at their orientation, but staff members are not provided training at that time on how to 

accomplish this task. If the DSO receives a complaint about website/distance learning access, 

the office refers it to the appropriate department or puts in a work order and provides accessible 

versions of materials in the meantime. The DSO also checks its website for accessibility and has 

also contacted a former student, who has a vision-related disability, to check that the DSO site is 

accessible. University staff stated that the University relies on content editors’ training and 

efforts to ensure that the website adheres to the Section 508 guidelines and to the other 

guidelines the University has established.

Blackboard

Blackboard is a separate system that the IT Department does not work with; it is a “black box” or 

proprietary system used to deliver online learning, and the University uses it “as is.” IT staff do

not create, build, or control the content on that system, and University staff interviewed stated 

that the University does not actively make sure Blackboard is in compliance with laws such as

Section 504 or Title II; rather, a staff member deals with exceptions when things are brought to 

his attention. In such a case, if a course does not meet accessibility guidelines, the faculty 

member involved would be contacted. 

Distance Education Program

The University has developed its own process, known as the “eYSU Rubric Checklist,” for 

creation of distance education courses. The checklist provides guidelines to faculty for 
Page 9 – James P. Tressel

developing online courses. The final standard required by the eYSU rubric is that “[c]ourse 

materials are provided in accessible formats.” The rubric states that, “[t]o the extent possible, 

equivalent alternatives are provided for audio and visual content (a transcript of audio and a 

transcript or closed captioning for video).” The rubric also states that course creators should 

consult with the DSO on steps to take to make a course accessible.

The eYSU guidelines require that course creators use the Distance Education department’s 

template and that courses applying for re-design are re-worked so that these “incorporate newer 

technologies to ensure equal access to all.” The eYSU rubric contains links to electronic 

documents; including links to the University’s accessibility guidelines, web accessibility 

guidelines, and Section 508 compliance documents.

The distance education course creation/re-design policy includes requirements that course 

creators participate in appropriate training as provided by Quality Matters15 or the YSU Office of 

Distance Education. Trainings include but are not limited to: eYSU Rubric Training, Apply the 

Quality Matters Rubric Workshop (required by all developers), and LMS (Blackboard) 

training.16

Distance Learning courses are also required to undergo a Quality Matters (QM) review: a 

determination of whether the course is accessible to persons with disabilities. This accessibility 

requirement is cited on the University’s Distance Education website at 

http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Quality_Matters_m3899.html. Included in the 2011-2013 QM 

guidelines are accessibility standards that require courses to employ accessible technologies and 

information as to how to obtain accommodations, to contain alternatives to auditory and visual 

content, to use design that facilitates readability and reduces distractions, and to accommodate 

the use of assistive technology.

A University staff member informed OCR that the majority of the time online videos are used for 

distance learning. The staff member stated that it was not clear if the training for those creating 

distance learning courses included instructions on how to make videos accessible, but 

presumably so. 

University staff stated that distance education course creation is done by different departments. 

Faculty members use the standard course template if they request a distance education course for 

a term, which includes a statement on disability requirements. An instructional designer on staff, 

who is trained in accessibility and is also a master reviewer for QM, is available to any faculty 

member; and the Distance Education department recommends that any faculty member thinking

about putting a course online should speak with the instructional designer for guidance.

University review of distance learning courses is required. The review includes the instructional

designer, the content editor for the specific department, and the faculty member who designed 

 

15

 According to the University, it participates in the Ohio Quality Matters Consortium, which is a peer-review 

system that offers a process for reviewing distance education courses. Part of the review is a determination of 

whether the course is accessible to persons with disabilities. 

16http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/Application_to_Develop_September_20131.p

df.
Page 10 – James P. Tressel

the course. The eYSU rubric has 16 standards, with requirements and guidelines. The QM 

rubric has 32 standards, some that are required and some that are recommended. Courses have to 

meet all of the requirements of both, and many of the recommendations/guidelines, to pass 

review and be approved. Faculty can use the rubric, QM, or both. Faculty members also have to 

go through training with QM; that training discusses accessibility and how to put courses in an 

accessible format. 

The Distance Education department offers training to all faculty on how to make material 

accessible under the eYSU rubric, but the training is not required except for the information 

about the rubric included during new faculty orientation.

Distance Education staff stated that the IT Department responds to complaints about accessibility 

that are web-related; if a complaint is course-related, the complaint would probably start with the 

Distance Education department. For complaints about website inaccessibility, Distance 

Education defers to IT unless the issue is with Distance Education’s specific web page. 

Distance Education staff stated that the Distance Education department monitors its own site; its 

web editor and the instructional designer are responsible for making sure that the campus 

accessibility policies are implemented. All of the department’s web pages and courses are 

created and then reviewed before these go live. An OCR review of the Distance Education 

website demonstrated that, nonetheless, many links included on that page lead to documents that 

exhibit inaccessible features.

Procurement

University staff members interviewed were not aware if the University has any guidelines or 

procedures for purchasing assistive or accessible technology. Staff stated that the DSO provides 

assistive devices, and that the IT Department will install and provide the support necessary for 

such devices. The University’s standard purchase order contains a provision that requires 

suppliers not to discriminate on the basis of disability, but no further language requires materials 

purchased to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Accessibility of the University’s Website

University staff interviewed stated that different schools or colleges within the University have 

different websites (sub-sites of the main University website) and control the posting of content 

themselves. A combination of staff, faculty, and students are responsible for website content 

management. A staff member interviewed stated that he was not aware of any quality control 

checks of the website; the University depends on the creators to make the sites compliant. 

Content editors are responsible for maintaining website content—for putting text and 

photographs onto the site—and thus for ensuring text descriptions are provided for images onto 

websites, labeling hypertext links, and otherwise following the University’s guidelines. 

Guidelines drawn from W3C and Section 508 are specifically brought to content editor’s 

attention.
Page 11 – James P. Tressel

The University informed OCR that the University has addressed many of the accessibility issues 

found with its website through use of a text-only site. About 85% of the campus uses the CMS 

system, which puts a link to a text-only site in the upper left hand corner of web pages, where a 

screen reader would read it first on the page. The main website and its sub-sites all use the same 

CMS system. The University’s homepage does not, however, use the CMS system and does not 

have the text-only link in the upper left hand corner; but a University staff member interviewed 

stated that the home page has been set up to be accessible and screen reader compatible.

The University provided OCR with extensive records of discussions about the University’s 

website and access for persons with disabilities. Those materials suggest awareness that 

University websites are not fully accessible, such as accessibility issues with the home page; 

methods of distributing data, such as PDF documents and videos, which required work to 

become accessible; a lack of guidance for content creators; no monitoring of what is on the 

University’s website; a lack of a screen reader license; problems with access for online 

applications, particularly for prospective undergraduates and international students; and 

accessibility issues with Banner.

The records also document the University’s efforts to gain information about website 

accessibility; including solicitations from outside vendors that assist in ameliorating access 

issues, conferences dealing with such issues, and a joint initiative between the Ohio Board of 

Regents and the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission to fund The Ohio State University to 

develop system-wide approaches to disability access. The University provided OCR with 

information concerning plans to, for example, make thousands of pages of PDFs on its website 

accessible.

During the investigation, OCR and the Department’s Technology Team reviewed a sampling of 

pages on the University’s website to determine whether these are accessible to users through 

assistive technology; specifically, whether the website permits students with disabilities to 

receive all University educational benefits provided by technology in an equally effective and 

equally integrated manner as students without disabilities.

OCR began its preliminary review of the University’s website in February 2014. OCR selected a 

representative sampling of web pages for evaluation, using the following criteria: (a) web pages 

through which people are most likely to enter the website (e.g., the home page) and (b) web 

pages most likely to garner the most traffic from its visitors and/or provide the most important 

information regarding the University’s program; such as information pertaining to admissions,

curriculum requirements, student handbook/code of conduct, services, and extracurricular 

activities. The Technology Team also reviewed the Distance Education website. The

Technology Team reviewed and evaluated these University web pages for accessibility, using 

Section 508 standards as guidelines. OCR identified a number of technical deficiencies, 

including but not limited to the following: 

 lack of alternative text on images;

 documents not posted in an accessible format;

 lack of captions on videos and the inability to operate video controls using assistive 

technology;
Page 12 – James P. Tressel

 improperly structured data tables;

 frames not titled with text that facilitates frame identification and navigation; 

 improperly formatted and labeled form fields; and 

 improper contrast between background and foreground colors.

The identified deficiencies are discussed in more detail below. 

1. Lack of alternative text on images

Blind people, those with low vision, and people with other disabilities that affect their ability to 

read a computer display often use assistive technology so they can access the information 

displayed on a web page. Two commonly used technologies are screen reading software and 

refreshable Braille displays. These assistive technologies read text and produce audio or tactile

versions of text that can be accessed by those with vision-related disabilities; but they cannot 

translate images into speech or Braille, even if words appear in the images. For example, these 

technologies cannot interpret a photograph of a stop sign, even if the word “stop” appears in the 

image. Because screen readers and refreshable Braille displays read only text, such assistive 

technology cannot interpret photographs; charts; color-coded information; or other graphic 

elements on a web page.

OCR’s review of the University’s website demonstrates that the website uses many images 

without providing a text equivalent, rendering some content inaccessible to screen readers, nonvisual browsers, and Braille readers; thus, inaccessible to persons with disabilities who rely on 

such assistive technology to access web content. For example, numerous images on the 

University’s admissions page do not contain text equivalents. 

2. Documents are not posted in an accessible format

PDF documents, or those in other image-based formats, are often not accessible to people who 

are blind and who use screen readers and to people with low vision who use text enlargement 

programs or different color and font settings to read computer displays. The University posts 

numerous documents on its website in PDF format. The PDFs encountered during OCR’s

review of the University’s website had multiple accessibility issues, including not being properly 

tagged in order for the document to be accessible.17 For example, a PDF available through the 

University’s Disability Services web page entitled “Policy for Receiving Notes” is not properly 

tagged; thus, a person using screen reading software would not be able to identify or receive 

information from the document. 

3. Lack of captions on videos

Captioning for the audio portion of a video is important, as individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing may not be able to hear auditory content. Captions provide a verbatim, textual 

equivalent of the auditory information. Synchronized captioning is also necessary so that a 

 

17 PDF tags provide a hidden, structured, textual representation of the PDF content that is presented so that screen 

reading software can access that information for persons with disabilities. Tags exist for accessibility purposes only 

and have no visible effect on the PDF file to those not using assistive technology.
Page 13 – James P. Tressel

person reading captions can watch the speakers on a video and associate relevant body language 

and actions with the speech. Individuals who are blind or have low vision may require audio 

descriptions to access visual information in multimedia. Audio descriptions are verbal 

descriptions of the actions and images in a video that are inserted during pauses in the regular 

dialogue or audio track. Audio descriptions are necessary if significant information that is 

presented visually is not discernable from the dialogue or audio track.

Videos on the University’s website have captions; however, these are the default YouTube 

captions, and are therefore incomplete or inaccurate and lack audio descriptions. 

4. Improperly Structured Data Tables

The purpose of data tables is to present information in a grid or matrix and to have columns or 

rows that clarify the relationship between types of information in the grid. When screen readers 

read straight through data tables—especially large ones—it is easy for users to get lost. In order 

for a data table to be appropriately accessible, the table must have the proper markup designation 

in HyperText Markup Language (HTML). When the proper HTML markup is in place, users of 

screen readers can navigate through data tables one cell at a time, and they will hear the column 

and row headers spoken to them so that the information and relationship of information in the 

various columns and rows are understandable. 

The tables encountered during OCR’s review of the University’s website were not properly 

marked up; therefore, table formatting will prevent assistive technology from reading and 

interacting with them correctly. An example of an improperly structured table was found on the 

University’s financial aid website at the tuition and costs page, where a student or parent would 

input information to estimate the cost of tuition.

5. Frames not Titled with Text that Facilitates Frame Identification and 

Navigation

A “frame” is a part of a web page or browser window. A frame displays content that is 

independent of the frame itself; using frames, a website can load content independent of itself, 

such as media content from an outside source. To increase the accessibility of frames, it is 

important to title each frame. The frame name or title should provide meaningful information 

identifying the purpose of each frame, so that a person using a screen reader has a general idea of 

what type of information is contained within each frame. Thus, it is important to include 

meaningful titles for each frame element in order to facilitate frame identification and navigation.

The frames encountered during the review were not properly marked; therefore, the lack of 

markings will prevent assistive technology from reading/interacting with the frames correctly. 

For example, one page on the University’s website provides a “virtual tour” of the University, 

using content from an independent site; but the frames were not properly identified so as to be 

readable by a screen reader and therefore understandable by a person with a disability who needs 

to use such technology.
Page 14 – James P. Tressel

6. Improperly Formatted and Labeled Form Fields

When electronic forms are designed to be completed online, the form should allow people using 

assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for 

completion and submission of the form; including all directions and cues. Electronic forms pose 

accessibility problems when web developers separate a form element from its associated label or 

title. For instance, if an input box is intended for receiving a user’s last name, the web developer 

must be careful that the words “last name” (or some similar text) are somehow associated with 

the input box; otherwise, a person using assistive technology will not be able to tell what 

information should be typed in the box. Mere visual proximity of a form element and its title 

offers no guarantee that a screen reader will associate the two or that this association will be 

obvious to a user of assistive technology.

The forms encountered during OCR’s review of the University’s website were not properly 

marked up; therefore, the lack of markups will prevent assistive technology from reading and 

interacting with the forms correctly. An example of such a form is the Test Request Form on the 

Center for Student Progress page.

7. Improper Contrast between Background and Foreground Colors

Many people with low vision do not see web pages in the same way as do people without low 

vision. Some can see only small portions of a computer display at one time. Others cannot see 

or understand text or images that are too small for them to perceive or interpret. Still others can 

see website content only if it appears in specific colors. For these reasons, many people with low 

vision use specific color and font settings when they access the Internet—settings that are often 

very different from those other people use. For example, many people with low vision need to 

use high contrast settings, such as bold white or yellow letters on a black background. Others 

need just the opposite—bold black text on a white or yellow background. Many must use softer, 

more subtle color combinations. Users, therefore, need to be able to manipulate color and font 

settings in their web browsers and operating systems in order to make pages readable for 

themselves. 

OCR identified multiple pages on the University’s website, including the University’s Financial 

Aid page, where the colors chosen are in a range that makes reading or interacting with parts of 

the site difficult or impossible for users with low vision or those who cannot see color. 

8. Other Website Accessibility Concerns

Other technical deficiencies impacting the ease of use and/or access to content located on the 

University’s website include scripting (computer programming) language in dropdown menus 

that is not identified with functional text. When web page authors do not put functional text with 

a script, a screen reader will often read the content of the script itself as a meaningless jumble of 

numbers and letters. Although this jumble is text, it cannot be interpreted or used.

The navigation menus on the site, such as ones found on the University’s home page and on a 

“Test Request” form located on the Center for Student Progress, and the controls on the “slide 
Page 15 – James P. Tressel

show” on the front page cannot be used without a mouse and are therefore unusable by many 

people who use assistive technology. 

The University’s website also lacks a method for skipping repetitive navigation links on many 

University pages, which can decrease efficiency and usability for keyboard users and those using 

screen reading software. The “Test Request” form mentioned above exhibits this characteristic.

Based on the above, OCR determined that the University was in violation of the regulation 

implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4 and 104.43, and regulation implementing Title 

II, at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130 and 35.160(a)(1),with respect to web pages analyzed.

Students’ Experiences

The University provided to OCR a list of students with sensory impairments. Nine students 

responded to OCR’s inquiries. All nine reported that the University’s DSO offered them 

disability-related assistance. Seven of the nine students reported using the University’s e-mail 

system, course registration, grade reporting systems, campus libraries, and Blackboard. One 

student reported using only the University’s online library system. Two of the nine students 

reported taking a University course online. 

Two students reported having difficulty accessing a University system—one due to the light blue 

color of e-mail text, which the student and a professor resolved, and another student who 

resolved issues on her own. None of the nine students reported knowing of difficulties accessing 

University systems that other students with disabilities had experienced. 

In addition, information provided by the University supported that a student who uses a screen 

reader had informed a University staff member in 2010 that various parts of the University’s 

website were inaccessible, including several applications for programs and a housing application. 

The student also reported problems encountered when trying to purchase a book online and 

problems related to using Banner. The staff member reported these issues, but she stated that she 

heard nothing further.

Resolution Agreement

As noted above, OCR identified violations of the regulations implementing Section 504 and Title 

II with respect to the required notice of nondiscrimination, 34 C.F.R. §104.8 and 28 C.F.R. 

§35.106. OCR also identified violations of the regulations implementing Section 504 and Title II 

with respect to the content from the University’s website that OCR analyzed, including denying 

qualified persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from its online 

learning environment, affording such persons an opportunity to participate in or benefit from that 

environment that is not equal to that afforded to others, providing such persons with benefits or 

services through its online learning environment that are not as effective as those provided to 

others, and failing to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, 

participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as 

communications with others, 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a). 
Page 16 – James P. Tressel

Information received to date indicates that a number of other pages on the University’s website 

may not be accessible to persons with disabilities and that the University’s policies relating to 

web access may not be adequate to ensure access for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, 

information received to date also indicates that persons with disabilities may not have access to 

University computer labs comparable to that provided to persons without disabilities and/or may 

receive incomplete notice as to where services are available. During the course of OCR’s 

investigation, the University expressed interest in resolving these other possible compliance 

concerns without further investigation. 

On November 25, 2014, the University agreed to implement the enclosed resolution agreement 

to resolve the compliance review. In the resolution agreement, the University committed to 

developing and publishing one consistent, appropriate notice of nondiscrimination, including 

clear identification of the Section 504/Title II coordinators, in all recruitment materials or 

publications concerning general information that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, 

applicants, and employees. 

The University will also develop or revise, adopt, and provide notice of a web accessibility 

policy and an implementation and remediation plan to ensure adherence to the policy; provide 

training to those responsible for web page and content development, including faculty and 

students, as appropriate; review its website and e-learning platform(s) to identify and ameliorate 

any accessibility problems, as well as to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the sites continue 

to be accessible (i.e. conduct an electronic and information technologies audit); provide 

certification from a third-party web accessibility consultant or an employee of the University 

with sufficient knowledge, skill, and experience that the University’s electronic and information 

technologies meet the technical standard(s) adopted by the University; and provide OCR with 

reports describing its efforts for multiple subsequent academic years to comply with its web 

accessibility policy and plan, including information documenting any compliance issues 

discovered through the monitoring, audits, or complaints and the actions taken to correct those 

issues.

Finally, the University will ensure that access to computer labs, especially regarding provision of 

assistive technology, is comparable to that of students without disabilities; and that accurate 

notice is given to students, faculty, staff, and other beneficiaries able to utilize University 

computer labs that such services are available. 

Based on the commitments the University made in the resolution agreement described above, 

OCR determined that it is appropriate to close the investigative phase of this compliance review. 

This letter should not be interpreted to address the University’s compliance with any other 

regulatory provision or to address any issues other than those addressed in this letter.

This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR compliance review. This letter 

is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as 

such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made 

available to the public.
Page 17 – James P. Tressel

Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against 

any individual because he or she has participated in the compliance review resolution process. If 

this happens, that person may file a complaint alleging such treatment. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related 

correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will 

seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if 

released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.

OCR greatly appreciates the ongoing cooperation received from the University during the 

investigation and resolution of this case. If you have any questions regarding the resolution of 

this compliance review, please contact Karla K. Ussery, Review Leader, at 216-522-2683, or by 

e-mail at Karla.Ussery@ed.gov. Ms. Ussery will also be monitoring the University’s 

implementation of the agreement. Should you choose to submit future monitoring reports 

electronically, please send them to OCRCleMonitoringReports@ed.gov. 

Sincerely,

 /s/

Meena Morey Chandra

Director

Enclosure