 So I'm going to go ahead and start the session. We'll hold questions till the end. If something comes into your mind and you want to go ahead and just get it in the Q&A, we'll address it, you know, towards the end. And then we also have people locally here who will be coming up to the mic to ask questions, hopefully. But to get started, I'm Terry Green. I'm from the University of Toledo. I'm the moderator for this session. And I'm very happy to welcome Elise Fox and her very prestigious co-presenter. I wasn't given a name. Oh, this is Maeve. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. I think we're all used to seeing people's kids now. But yes, I have a sick toddler. So, you know, the children are always well-behaved until you need them to be. So I'm going to get through this without too much distraction. It should be fun, I think. So I'm very happy to welcome Elise Fox, who's the Digital Initiatives Librarian from Sacramento State with us today. And she is presenting on Learning to Be an Ally, How COVID Taught Us to Be Accessible Content Advocates. So accessibility is a very hot topic. I'm interested in what you've learned and what you can share with us. So I'm going to go ahead and mute myself and let you take it away. And if anybody can't hear that's attending virtually, just pop that note in the Q&A and we'll see what we're working with. Thank you. Alright, thanks so much, Terry, for the introduction. As Terry mentioned, my name is Elise Fox, and I'm the Digital Initiatives Librarian at Sacramento State. Prior to my recent appointment, however, I was the Library Services Specialist, and I was overseeing our IR and our ETD collection specifically. I just want to point out that there is closed captioning available at the bottom of your screen. So for anyone tuning in, if you do need closed captioning, there's just the little icon there you can select. And I'm also going to turn off my video one so that the little one doesn't get too distracted by myself, but also to conserve bandwidth. And I'll turn it back on during the Q&A section here. Okay. So I just want to start out with our land acknowledgement. We are mindful in acknowledging that the land that Sacramento State is located on was and continues to be occupied by the Indigenous people of this area, the Miwok, Maidu, and Nisanon, recognizing their culture that is rich with spiritual ties to the land and waters that resonate with their tradition. We are humbled and take this opportunity to thank and honor those Indigenous people of this area. So after creating this presentation, I realized there's some jargon and acronyms that are unavoidable. And I don't want to assume that even at this type of conference that people are familiar with those, especially those that pertain to accessibility and remediation tasks. So A11Y is a numeral NIM for accessibility, the 11 being the number of letters between the first and last letter in accessibility. The accessibility project that's spelled with the numeral NIM is a community-driven effort to make digital accessibility easier. I've been a little mischievous and used it in a dual sense in our title, which I interpret to be read as learning to be an accessibility ally. IR is, of course, your institutional repository, an online place where documents from an institution are stored and discoverable. 508 compliance is shorthand for a law that requires federal government websites to be safe and accessible for people with disabilities. WKG 2.0 is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Remediate is the additional work that is performed to a document to enhance the accessibility. OCR or Optical Character Recognition converts images of text into machine-encoded text. Distribution license is our local agreement that gives us permission to post-deposited work and outlines the terms and conditions for deposit in our institutional repository. ETD, electronic theses and dissertations, of course, why we are all here. CSU is the California State University System of 23 campuses. IRT is Sac State's Information Resources and Technology Department. And Sac State, also known as California State University Sacramento or Sacramento State, which are two official names, but Sac State is definitely the more casual kind of slang version of our title that is used often. So first a little background on our project. Sac State University Library's IR faces a common problem, which is how to achieve 508 compliance and ensure accessibility for all users. The library lacked adequate staffing and funding to verify and improve the accessibility of current ETDs as well as those retrospectively digitized. While accessibility projects at the library had addressed web, tech and physical accessibility, there had not yet been a focus on content. At the time this project was conceived there was no current library institutional or consortia policy to guide our accessibility practice. When students add their works to the IR they do sign a distribution license that includes an attestation that the work does meet basic accessibility standards. However, there were no guidelines or instructions to help students remediate their work to be more accessible. We believe that the library has a responsibility to make the content published by the library, in this case IR content accessible and 508 compliant. And the library strategic plan included a commitment to accessibility, so we thought we would be supported in tackling some of these issues. So as part of writing an upcoming book chapter on our project for the ACRL title Rethinking Institutional Repositories I conducted a survey to provide a snapshot of ETD accessibility practices across the CSU system. This survey was being conducted as part of an effort to establish baseline accessibility practices as well as gauge where Sac State's practices fit into the greater consortia. The survey went to the IR managers at the 23 CSU campuses and we received responses from nearly all. Those that did not did not have enough insight to contribute. So the results of that survey are listed on the slide here and I'll just kind of briefly read those out to you. So 11% or two campuses do not do any remediation and this is currently as of spring 2022. 21% or four campuses do adjust color. 47% or nine campuses add alternate text for images. 47% or nine campuses do add an update tags in the tag tree in Adobe Acrobat. 32% or six campuses revise elements like the reading order. 37% or seven campuses add captions and transcripts. And overwhelmingly 89% or 17 campuses perform OCR. This was very enlightening for us because what it showed was that prior to our pandemic or prior to our accessibility pilot project, Sac State was in the very bottom ranking in terms of we were not doing anything to facilitate accessibility. So the next several slides are a little attempted an interactive portion of this presentation so bear with me. I know these can be very tricky in a hybrid environment but it's would be great if you can put your responses in the chat if that is available to you or just discuss with some of your neighbors if you're tuning in from the venue. So I'm really interested to learn what other libraries are doing specifically if what you're doing falls into the other category. So what are your library's remediation efforts? From the list here do not remediate adjust color add alt text add or update tags revise elements add captions or transcripts OCR or anything else and I'll give folks a couple minutes to contribute responses via chat or to discuss briefly if you're attending in person. I'm just really listening that I can't really see the chat so hopefully there's some good responses in there. At least we have some local who has some information to share. Yeah, please Yeah, okay. So we have an accessibility mandate that our university just put in and I just told the grad school last week or the week before that their students are going to have to make their ETDs accessible and I think the grad school got over. So I just wanted to contribute that at University of Central Florida right now if a student does something great If not, you be for me because I'll get to go back and redo all like a couple thousand of these over next nine months. So that's all. Did you hear that Elise? I did hear that that's really interesting. Well I have some information about how we've worked with our grad studies department later in my presentation so hopefully that will be helpful to you. Well that's why I'm here. Are you in the library? Yes, I'm in the library at the university but I work very closely with our for the grad ETDs because I work with undergrad and grad but with undergrad is another problem but for the grad ones I have a very close relationship with the grad college and the people in that department in that office and they control the process, they control all of the pieces parts and I just manage once the pdx 99.9% of pdx right now. Once the documents actually come to the library then I control all that process but they own everything and tell me other lines. Do you have an interaction with students then once they submit it or are you just flying accessibility? Well that's a great question because I don't know yet because this mandate just came down and we're still trying to figure that out but I don't have contact with the students unless they find their pieces or dissertation in the IR because they do have a note in there that if this is your work reach out to us stars at UCFWU and then they email me occasionally and some of them I know because some of them I work with on other projects or whatever and I'll drop them an email and say congratulations and whatever but that as far as how the accessibility will work is what we are going to learn over the next few months. So we have a comment also in the Q&A from Megan Davison. We don't remediate but Ohio Link is changing their accessibility policies so we're working on updating that. The university has been working on making itself more accessible and we need to get our ETDs caught up and I think a lot of us from Ohio in general we're all involved in this emerging project. Great thank you so much for sharing everyone that's really interesting and yeah I think we're all in the same boat of having this mandate to do this and trying to figure out what the most efficient workflow to do something that is an incredibly tedious and time-consuming task. And we have another in-person question. It should be on. Oh okay. I'm Gin Dressler of the Digital Projects Library in Kent State so in the Ohio Link Consortium too we've definitely got some things we're working towards. We also have a digital accessibility subcommittee from our library that's connected since 2019. So we try to work in some accessibility minimums in our digital projects but having committees in-house with almost one person from every department really helped adjust the conversation point around remediation, why it's important, and having some open folks in IT and other places on campus and resources. And we have Tim Watson up next. Hi Elise. Tim Watson the Director of Graduation Services at the Graduate School at OSU, Ohio State. You know like we've been saying here we're all kind of trying to wrap our arms around everything and you know as we've gotten into this at the University Ohio State does have an accessibility policy. I mean they do have an accessibility office but I found that the network is not very defined. There's really no resources for the students in terms of just having go check these links for tips and so forth. Even not really clear on what the policy is or how it even applies specifically to theses and dissertations. So there's certainly a lot of work to be done and so we're facing this Ohio link submission deadline coming up here and I think we're going to have a tough time making it to be totally honest. But anyway just wanted to say I think we're kind of experiencing some of the same issues in terms of just trying to get the networking on campus. Great thank you. Well that's all really good information to have and I'm confident now that this presentation will be meaningful to everyone so that's great. I'm just going to jump ahead a little bit just for time's sake. I just I had a couple more discussion questions but it sounds like everybody wants to get into the meat potatoes of it also. We'll go ahead and move forward. So this slide shows a quick overview of our plan for the initial 508 compliance accessibility project. So for this pilot project we actually had an IMLS grant that started before my time at Sac State to investigate and establish best practices in IRs which included accessible content. So for our Sac State policy ETDs we felt were sufficiently covered by the distribution license that student depositors agreed to but as a department we agreed that we did have a duty to make content produced in-house accessible such as retrospectively digitized theses. We had a backlog of 600 previously digitized theses that had been outsourced for digitization by vendor in 2011. We had previously received a quote to outsource the accessibility remediation on these and the cost was astronomical I feel like I'm maybe in the wrong field and should move over into accessibility remediation at this point. So we decided to experiment with training a student assistant in accessibility remediation to pilot a workflow. As this was a discrete set of PDF files it seems like an ideal candidate for a pilot project. And we were planning a large scale retrospective digitization of our entire print thesis collection at some stage. So this would also require accessibility remediation on a grand scale. To prepare for the initial remediation project myself serving as the project manager received training from the accessible content specialists at the university's IRT department. Based on this training and in consultation with the WCCAG 2.0 standards and as well as existing documentation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 508 Guide to Taking PDFs in Adobe. I created localized documentation to address the specific remediation needs for scanned PDFs. We actually hired a student assistant dedicated to accessibility remediation in February of 2020 which is a date that will obviously be important since March 2020 is when the COVID related campus closures and pivot to remote work and education began. And just a note before we dive into the intricacies of the project management I just want to clearly state that the following is not meant to promote any particular software platform. When noted it's merely there to demonstrate the application of resources we had available to us. And the nuances of the specific platforms did affect our overall workflow considerations to varying degrees. So what started is a way to test an accessibility policy and workflow to address future large-scale digitization of our thesis and dissertation print collection turned into a project manager's worst nightmare. So you notice that we initiated the pilot project for 2020 six weeks prior to our campus closing for 18 months. Though we had successfully trained one student assistant to perform remediation work both myself as the project manager and our student assistant were novice accessible content specialists. Furthermore I was the only employee in the library who had any accessibility remediation training and other campus departments whose duties included creating accessible content were now overwhelmed making course content accessible to support the transition to remote education. So with barely the scaffolding in place to support a full pledged accessibility project the project was scaled within weeks to support remote work opportunities for 45 student assistants five staff members whose jobs did not transition as easily to a remote work environment and address the accessibility of all content in the IR's thesis and dissertation collection about 4500 PDFs in total. We were truly building the plane while flying within days of the shutdown students and assigned staff were expecting to receive training and assignments and administrators were looking to minimize any loss of staff and student work hours. The library is one of the largest employers of students on our campus and as a regional campus serving many nontraditional first generation and parenting students we were committed to maintaining employment for all student assistants who wanted to continue working. In order to quickly onboard staff and students an asynchronous training model was adopted as that would have been impossible to coordinate the schedules of so many employees to conduct live zoom trainings. To facilitate this our existing documentation was enhanced to include instructional videos and demonstrations and comprehensive examples were additionally added. We held periodic open forum style sessions where students received one-on-one assistance as needed. In July of 2020 I received an advanced remediation training from another CSU and this training session illuminated some issues that had become apparent in our remediation workflow. And to resolve inconsistencies in our practice I developed and conducted two-part training sessions in September of 2020 to introduce more advanced remediation techniques. This two-part training session amounted to nearly a dozen sessions in order to accommodate all the participants' schedules. Our initial workflow was entirely reactionary with little to no ability to implement a practical workflow. Since we had been using a local OneDrive account to host the scanned PDFs that platform was built out to accommodate the full student workforce. And accessible scanned files were added to folders and assigned to students and four staff members were assigned a cohort of students to provide oversight, review completed files, and provide basic support. An additional staff member worked on manual transcription of legacy scanned theses that could not be run through the Adobe Acrobat software. As students completed the various steps they would track their progress in a shared spreadsheet that contained the metadata for the PDF files. A dedicated Slack channel was created for students to ask questions and this actually proved to be highly successful as students provided peer support to one another which was especially helpful for students working outside of normal business hours. Students were given ample flexibility with their work schedules in the first six months of the pandemic. Since remediation time varies depending on many factors including the length and complexity of the document there was no quota for completion required. It was required that students demonstrate progress was being made. However establishing an operationally sound workflow was truly an iterative process that required updates to procedures and policies in real time. So the image in the background of the slide and the next shows just a collage of the workflow tracking spreadsheet file sharing structure and added file properties just to kind of demonstrate the intricacies of managing the files in this project. So the 45 student assistants we had working on this project were able to complete the initial pilot project scope of the 600 retrospectively digitized theses within a few short months. Using OneDrive was sufficient for this type of file sharing since student folders could be populated with their assigned PDFs. However this quickly became a cumbersome workflow when students began working on the remainder of the ETD collection. A lack of file naming conventions in our ETD collection made locating documents challenging. Derivative files became confusing and a shared Google Doc resulted in accidental data loss as information was either accidentally deleted or overwritten. To resolve these first two issues we migrated the document library to SharePoint to better facilitate file sharing. Students could then check in and out documents and contribute comments to individual files to note progress or their completion of files and furthermore staff members could additionally report when files had been reviewed. Other factors including the varying skill levels of the students themselves meant that some students require significantly more oversight than others. And furthermore since the pilot involved remediating PDFs that had not yet been deposited into the IR we hadn't yet thought about the publication of an accessibility statement or acknowledgement of the accessibility work that had been done. So communication and technology issues have been the biggest challenges to this project. So we did have a few dedicated lines of communication set up to ensure that students' questions were answered in a timely fashion. However as a result of having staff reviewers who were juggling other responsibilities and themselves not accessible content specialists the vast majority of the questions were still directed to myself as the project manager which at times required a lot of attention and diversion from other responsibilities. In addition students were like the rest of us transitioning to entirely email-based communication which meant there were times important broadcast emails were sent to students regarding workflow updates that were just lost in the shuffle. Thankfully in very few cases we had to deal with unresponsive students. Technology was the biggest challenge to the smooth running of this project primarily related to our authentication process in order for students to have access to Adobe Acrobat or SharePoint. We were relying on an extended license that the University had granted in the wake of the pandemic shutdown. However when these licenses expired students suddenly found themselves without access to critical software that they needed in order to perform their job duties. We eventually were able to work out a solution with our IRT department but this caused weeks of back and forth between the library systems and the IRT department and really impacted students' ability to perform their work. Alright so once the kinks were ironed out the initial workflow remained relatively consistent throughout as demonstrated in the following diagram. Staff members working from a master spreadsheet of all ETD content would assign a batch of records to their student assistants which entailed marking the assignments in the master spreadsheet. Copy and pasting the assigned records into the student's spreadsheet and this helped to alleviate the data loss issues from our original shared spreadsheet. The metadata in the spreadsheet included the handled links to the ETD records. Students would download the PDF from the IR, run the accessibility checker in Adobe Acrobat, perform remediation tasks and upload the completed PDF to their SharePoint folder, marking the record completed in their spreadsheet. Library staff would regularly review student works downloading the completed files from SharePoint and uploading to our learning management system canvas. In our canvas instance we have a tool called Ally not to be confused with the numeral NEM which gives an assessment of document accessibility. Though it's not foolproof working with our campus accessible technology coordinator we determined that an Ally score of 85% or higher was a reasonable threshold for which we could say a document was accessible or not. So if the PDFs were over this we added a cover page to the file that acknowledged the accessibility remediation work and added the remediated file to the IR record. If the PDF scored less than 85% it was returned to the student with notes regarding the specific issues to be resolved and the student would further remediate or work with staff to resolve issues until the score was brought over 85%. So our amazing student assistants were remediating files faster than staff and myself could review them and as a result we were developing a backlog of remediated but not reviewed content. As our students became more self-reliant we trained them to conduct the review process and access was granted to Canvas so they could access the Ally tool function. They added the cover page to their completed documents and added the files to the IR records. Staff would still monitor their cohorts progress and be responsive to complex remediation questions. In addition students who were less savvy with the remediation but still needed to fill hours could work on reviewing and finalizing the backlog of remediated PDFs. So as our campus returned to our you know rather normal operating procedures last fall our student assistants, many of them from our user services department also returned to their own site duties. We were able to maintain four student assistants through the fall and three the spring which has allowed us to keep pace with remediating inaccessible ETD submission from the most recent academic year. Our campus has recently adopted Microsoft Teams and with the dwindling workforce the project has moved to that platform. Hi Elise, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, your co-presenter is starting to obscure a little bit of your presentation. Okay. Just want to give you a heads up. Thank you. I do appreciate it. Sometimes I can't talk. Okay. Alright. The project is currently on Teams and since we're mostly working with current ETD submissions our remaining student assistant is assigned task items as ETDs are reviewed and published in the IRON. Alright, maybe I need to pause for just one second and take care of this little one. Hold on. You're doing a fantastic job. In the meantime you know go ahead if anybody has any comments or you know possible upcoming questions go ahead and put them in the Q&A and Elise will be able to address those when she returns. Okay, hopefully get through the rest of this here. Okay. I'll just skip a little bit just because we're just in the essence of time. So, in summation so using I mentioned Teams is what we currently host this project on and I think it's good to just when you're envisioning doing a project like this to have some sort of project management software. Teams is nice because we can both handle scheduling for remote students. They can clock in and out for their time. There's also a built-in chat function and much better kind of file sharing operations. So, that's what we've been using now. So, what does this mean and how is this informed our current workflow and departmental practice which I think is what most people are interested in. So, the expanded pilot project provided us with some critical data that we would not have been able to gather without a pandemic. Ultimately, it proved that for our institution retrospective remediation as a policy is not feasible student hours alone for this project totaled over 20,000 over 18 months while only 33% of the PDF content in the repository was remediated. We have been able to keep up with the current ETD submission cycles. There are no guarantees currently that we will be able to replace any student assistance still assigned to this project when we might lose the retrition. And as of September of last year all staff have additionally returned to onsite work. So, furthermore the learning curve for training staff and students is lengthy and requires significant oversight. In anticipation of a reduced workforce or reduction in our ability to perform accessibility remediation systematically, we've worked really hard to implement changes that will enhance the accessibility of ETD submissions before they ever reach the library. By developing more instructional materials including a live guide dedicated to accessibility for ETDs incorporating instructional materials better into the ETD submission workflow as well as making the accessibility attestation and the distribution license more prominent. We have already seen a lot of success in the number of ETD submissions we are receiving that required no remediation. In addition to the cover page added to remediated files that acknowledge the accessibility work we also created a dedicated metadata field and records to support an accessibility statement for verified and remediated files. There are some examples on this slide there. So, this project has afforded us the opportunity to build and strengthen relationships with key campus stakeholders proactively promoting accessibility as part of the creation of student scholarship. An example is working with the office of graduate studies to update their various templates. So, the accessibility features are more integrated which will encourage students to use the native word functions further increasing the accessibility of the ETD submission without additional work from the student depositor. And as I wrap up this presentation I wanted to talk about how we think about framing accessibility in the IR and in other areas of library work. I think accessibility like 508 compliance work and the ways we think about it are so important and totally applicable even for people who don't work heavily with their IRs. So, when I came to Sac State accessibility in 508 compliance if it was referred to at all was largely in a legalistic way rather than from a disability justice informed approach. I think many institutions and workplaces look at accessibility from a standpoint of what is needed to avoid legal trouble. As mentioned in our case study to deposit items in Sac State's IR you need to sign a distribution license that contains language about the work being accessible. But we previously weren't enforcing that or providing information on how to make things accessible. Grad students mostly used a thesis template provided by the Office of Graduate Studies but that was the main effort pre-remediation. And as I learned when I was updating accessibility of that thesis this spring those templates were really not that accessible to begin with. We also did not check to see if submissions were OCR nor did we perform any accessibility tasks for incoming submissions. The thought was that we recovered legally because authors had stated the deposited items were accessible. Realistically many maybe even most depositors were signing it without having read nor understood what was meant by accessible. So, some signs accessibility is being framed as a burden or in a legalistic way includes doing the minimum to avoid legal issues. Relying on language in a distribution license or other unwieldy document with low accountability by the depositor and the staff and not having resources for making documents accessible for the depositor and then relying on staff to remediate as an afterthought or on a request only basis. To be gracious though, I think a lot of times this framing can come from a place of knowing this is something we are responsible for but not given the staffing money or training to adequately handle. I'm really interested in moving the accessibility approach away from being a burden or legality a task to perform to avoid being sued. Towards an idea of accessibility as a justice and equity issue. For our case study I wanted to shift the focus from disabled users needing to request remediation or accommodation and I wanted to create a culture where the library is providing training and tools to authors so that this work becomes a part of supporting each other as a Sac State community. I think having so many of our student employees involved has also assisted in this cultural shift. With my hiring and the subsequent promotion of our IR services a lot of the interest was from professors wanting to deposit student works. Working with students as authors is really allowing us a way to make accessible document creation part of their education. When I met with groups or individuals to talk about the IR and how to submit documents I always bring up accessibility and why it is important. We want to empower our users to do their own accessibility work. As we discussed we don't have the staffing levels to make every document accessible that comes through our door so along with our remediation project we are asking authors to take responsibility. Ideally by giving authors the skills they need to make their documents accessible we will lower some of the need for remediation of deposit documents. So we have provided opportunities and resources for education on accessible documents such as creating that lab guide I mentioned for both creating accessible documents in Word, PowerPoint and Google products and this gives us a place that we can actually point authors to. I think it is also an important opportunity to leverage our gatekeeping abilities. We usually think of gatekeeping as bad but if people want to access the IR and deposit their content or are required to deposit their content in the IR it is the perfect opportunity to provide some education on accessibility from a technical skills and philosophical perspective. So even though this project came from a very particular circumstance I think it can be useful model to many university libraries. For starters it proves it is possible to train students to perform 508 compliance and accessibility remediation. It is also a task that can be performed remotely and by employees in various departments for whatever reason that may be something your university wants to explore not just during a historic pandemic. And I have my info up here if you'd like to reach out. In particular I've always freely shared our instructions and workflows in the past to those who are interested. And thank you so much for attending this session and it looks like we have some time for questions. Thank you so much Elise. We did have some additional questions. I don't see any additional in the Q&A but I know we had some here in the actual room where we are. So I'm just going to ask whoever wanted to comment or question to come on up to the mic. Let's put that back on. Hi Elise, I just wonder if you have any feedback on how the students are implementing the accessibility how are they adopting the policies and are they finding it somewhat easy to do or are they reaching out a lot about help. One thing I think we're facing is that we have no resources on campus for a student to go to to get help for making their document accessible so it's entirely going to be entirely up to the student who is not trained in this either. So have you got any feedback from those students about their experience basically? Yeah so one thing that we've been doing is we've been making sure to keep track of all the questions that do come in. So when we revised our ETD submission workflow instead of having the accessibility statement buried we put a statement that is the very first thing they see in the ETD submission workflow that says your work needs to be accessible. Here's a link to the LibGuide here's an email address if you have questions. So based on the number of hits that that web page is getting it seems like a lot of people are accessing it and when you kind of correlate that with the number of ETDs we are getting that are 100% accessible there definitely seems to be some correlation there. But also as I mentioned because we've provided students with a contact email address at the library that they can ask questions to we kind of are able to feel those questions and see what are the most common questions that come up. Also tracking the errors that are the most common errors that come up for the incoming submissions that are not or are partially accessible. So by kind of keeping track of like what the most common questions we're getting or what the most common issues in the ETD submissions we receive are allows us to really focus on enhancing the LibGuide to address those specific topics. So I noticed in the fall semester after fall semester a lot of the ETD submissions were missing alt text. So I went back and I enhanced the LibGuide for that and in the spring semester I think we had one alt text image like issue. So I think that kind of just trying to keep track of and like pinpoint where those issues are and like building out those resources on you know kind of an assessment basis is really helpful for us. Thank you. We do have a question from our virtual audience. Kristen asks, did you end up doing a cost benefit analysis comparing the in-house remediation project to hiring out the project to a contractor? We did not but I can tell you the cost to do the remediation for the 600 backlogged theses was like almost $100,000. So you know our student assistants we are in California so our minimum wage is pretty high so I'm sure that we did spend some money on it but considering the 2500 maybe theses that we got done I think that we definitely did save money although I can't tell you that number exactly. Hi Elise. This is Lily Compton from Iowa State. Hi. So my question is more about the alt text remediation. We have a lot of these that are full of graphics that are complicated because it's not my discipline. How do you manage to train your student to remediate that part? Is it a matter of just copying and pasting a whole chunk of text from the closest paragraph or do they actually do something more? Yeah that's a great question I mean this comes up a lot for us when we have like computer engineering or like math theses or dissertations where I'm not training the student assistants nor do I have the skills to do the math speaks translation of that so I would say we're very kind of liberal in our alt text. I always recommend that students use their best judgment if they can kind of ascertain from the proceeding and following paragraphs what the content of the graph or image is supposed to represent and use that but if they can't or they don't feel that they can do in a way that wouldn't misrepresent that image then I'm fine with them just usually there's a caption so I'm fine with them just popping that in. I mentioned that we do add a cover page to every remediated file which not only acknowledges that we've done accessibility work on it but it also provides the user with our accessibility email address so that if they need further information or they need us to enhance the other remediation they have exactly what they need to be able to request that so that's kind of how we address those complicated issues. Thank you Elise. I don't think we have any other questions here locally and see nothing else in the Q&A so thank you so much for your time and I have a feeling that we'll be contacting you for some specific probable technical issues and seeing ways that you can help out other institutions so I guess we'll wrap up unless we have any more questions or any final parting thoughts Elise. Again, please reach out. I'm always happy to talk about this kind of stuff and share our materials so I'm sorry about the baby I don't think we are sorry about that Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you all so much enjoy the rest of the conference.