 Hello, welcome to my lightning talk on evaluating OER accessibility, open, digital and pedagogical. My name is Tiffany T. Herina and I'm the Program Manager for Affordable Learning, Georgia. In this talk, I'm going to tell you a little bit about a new evaluation tool we've recently created and shared at ALG to help you evaluate OER for accessibility. So our rubric has three categories of accessibility, and the first one is open access. In this section, we're looking for access and usability issues at the basic level of openness. So we're looking for downloadability. Can the resource be downloaded in a common and editable format? We're looking for printability. Is the resource designed to be print-friendly with standard paper size and minimal white space and page counts, as well as being block-and-white-friendly? We're looking for responsive design. Can it be read comfortably on desktop, laptop, tablet and mobile devices? We're looking for format convertibility. Can it be easily converted to other document formats without losing its accessibility features? And finally, we're looking for other barriers to access. Does it have login requirements, paywalls and language barriers? The next category is digital access, which is what we typically think of when we're looking at accessibility standards. In this section, we're looking at accessibility as it relates to WCAG guidelines for making materials accessible to all learners regardless of ability. For digital accessibility, we're looking for image readability. Does it include appropriate and descriptive alternative text or figure captions? We're looking for audio transcription. Does it include any audio files without video? And if so, does it include a complete and accurate transcript for those audio files? We're looking for video closed captioning. Does it include any videos with embedded audio? And if so, does it include accurate and timed closed captioning in at least the primary language of the video? We're looking at heading structure. Does it include a coded nested heading structure? And we're looking at list structure. Are lists properly coded as bolded or numbered lists as appropriate? We're also looking at descriptive links. Do the links in the resource include descriptive text explaining the destination of the URL? We're looking at text emphasis. Does the resource use bold and italics to indicate emphasis rather than using all caps, colors, or other inaccessible methods? And we're looking at color use. Does the resource have consistent use of color with clearly contrasting backgrounds? And does it avoid using color to convey meaning? The last category is pedagogical access, so accessibility at the pedagogical level. In this section, we're looking more at the application of the resource as well as any ancillary materials included. So we're looking at self-assessment opportunities. Does the resource include them for use before submission of graded assessments? A few examples of this might be ungraded practice quizzes, reflection activities, peer review, and other similar opportunities to obtain feedback before final graded submissions. And then we're also looking at universal design of activities. So do activities encourage universal design practices such that students can complete activities in multiple forms to better suit their creative and preferred learning styles? It's important to remember with this one that not all activities will work with universal design, but the idea is that the resource encourages it where possible. And that's the OER Accessibility Evaluation Rubric. You can review and use it yourself by navigating to the URL on your screen or tinyurl.com slash open ed21-accessibility. And feel free to contact me to learn more or ask questions at tiffani.thedena.usg.edu. Thanks so much for watching my lightning talk.