Forging Accessible and Legally Sound Policy Language

As a regional teaching institution with an open admissions model, Utah Valley University (UVU) is committed to making education accessible to all in its service region. To support this commitment, the UVU Policy Office strives to make university policy accessible to the university community. We are uniquely positioned to do this: our two-member team consists of two trained and experienced editors, and we are housed within the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Our senior editor, Miranda Christensen (who you may recall from an ACUPA online seminar she conducted) brings experience with Plain English from a previous position at an education company. Our attorneys, with their varied backgrounds and expertise, often participate not only in the legal review of drafts, but also as integral members of drafting committees.

Since the Policy Office became part of OGC two years ago, we have developed a partnership with OGC attorneys to craft policy language that balances legal accuracy with clarity for their intended audience. In this article, we’ll explain how the UVU Policy Office editors and OGC attorneys collaborate by sharing their editorial and legal expertise and by using MS Teams and AI tools.

The Quest for Accessible Language

Step 1

Our drafting committees are chaired by a policy steward tasked with drafting policy and leading the draft through our process. The Policy Office editor assigned to a policy provides ongoing editorial support and guides the policy steward throughout all phases. Once a drafting committee finalizes its draft, it submits it to the Policy Office for a comprehensive editorial review.

Step 2

In addition to typical editing tasks, the Policy Office editor conducts readability tests. The one we rely on the most is the Flesch-Kincaid test. These readability tests help us determine whether the draft is at a reading level that is appropriate for its intended audience. For example, for policies intended for students, we try to keep the reading level at Grade 10 to 14. For policies intended for faculty and graduate students, a higher reading level is appropriate. (We have not yet established a concrete Plain English rubric with formalized recommendations for reading levels and audiences—we hope to return later with another blog post about that.)

Step 3

If the editor determines that a lower reading level would be appropriate, they discuss this with the policy steward and the assigned attorney and begin their work. We have experimented with using AI (CoPilot or ChatGPT) as a tool to help us simplify complex passages. We may use prompts similar to this:

Simplify this paragraph into plainer English:

{Text inserted}


“Recast this text into reading level 12.”

{Text inserted}

Step 5

Once AI provides the revised paragraph, the editor reviews it to determine if it is sufficiently recast and if it fits the tone and context of the policy. Often, the editor makes further revisions. When the editor completes making the revision, they tag it with a comment. In this comment, the editor indicates they used AI to help simplify the text. They also use the comment to ask the assigned attorney to review the proposed revision. The prevailing concern for the editor is to ensure their revision didn’t lose any intended legal meaning.

Collaborating with our Attorneys

The assigned attorney conducts their legal review to ensure the policy content is legally sound and meets compliance requirements with Utah Board of Higher Education policy, state laws, and federal laws and regulations. The attorney is also tasked with ensuring the policy language itself communicates clearly any required legal meaning.

Because we use MS Teams to collaborate during the review process, the editor, the attorney, and the policy steward can chat or comment back and forth within the document. Once the attorney completes their review, the editor, attorney, and policy steward meet to review all revisions and resolve outstanding issues or questions.

This collaboration requires diplomacy and compromise. As the Policy Office editors, we do our best to advocate for clear, accessible language, while the attorneys focus on ensuring legal soundness to protect the institution and its community. There are situations where established legal language must prevail, and others where plain language is sufficient. The editors and attorneys, along with the policy stewards, can prioritize these needs through collaboration. The result of this collaboration is a policy that has benefited from those with editorial skills, subject matter expertise, and legal expertise.

One of our attorneys, Greg Jones, said this about his experience with the collaboration between editors, attorneys, and policy stewards:

“This was an ensemble project; team members respected each other’s proposed edits, even the ones that were ultimately rejected. We learned how to work with each other through the process of back-and-forth. Toward the end, a moment came when I thought everything was coming together, but I could see we had some legal problems with the draft. I saw a way to both fix those problems and significantly simplify the policy, but my solution would trample past edits of team members, and for all I knew it might break something. The team let me take a shot at it. The next day, we started our meeting, and to my surprise, they not only accepted my edits but liked them. This turned out to be a collaborative effort in which everyone enhanced the effectiveness of the others, focused on our objective, and we achieved success. In the end I did not feel like an attorney advising the drafting committee but simply felt like another member of the team.”

What our Attorneys Contribute

Policy Officer editors have discovered the following about what their attorney colleagues contribute to crafting policy language:

• They do indeed wish to use clear, Plain English as much as possible; they are willing to work with the editors and compromise on language. The exception is where specific language has been established in case law and is imbued with specific legal meaning.
• They are aware of the subtle legal meaning that certain words or phrases have—this is training most editors do not have. They work with us to determine whether we can use simpler phrasing if we have to use the legal term or language.
• They have excellent editorial instincts and provide suggestions on the logical order of ideas and consistent use of terms, and which terms are appropriate.
• They can see how language and legal meaning have a very subtle interplay and how even seemingly small revisions can have an impact on the legal meaning and standing of policy text.

Ongoing Benefits of this Collaboration

We have found it powerful and enlightening to see how beneficial this interaction between editors, attorneys, and policy owners can be. In the UVU Policy Office, we find ourselves amazed at how much we learn from our attorneys about the complex legal landscape of higher education. The Policy Office believes that this partnership results in well-crafted, effective policy.

A metaphor for how this relationship works came from a recent team event: UVU OGC held its annual goal-setting retreat at a lovely cabin in the mountains of Utah. Afterwards, we went on a hike by taking a ski lift to the top of the local ski resort. We then hiked down to a beautiful, well-known waterfall.

Although the hike was a descent, it was challenging for me. I had recently spent 6 weeks limping around with a cane due to a rogue knee. Having just started physical therapy and exercise to regain stability and function, I really wanted to go on this hike but had serious hesitations. The team encouraged me to go.

Within a few minutes of stepping off the ski lift, a teammate stayed behind with me to make sure I made the descent safely. His companionship and care motivated me to not turn back, but to keep going. The group ahead stopped often to make sure we could catch up. Team members took turns asking me how I was doing, whether I needed water or a break, and if I needed assistance crossing the stream at the base of the waterfall. Then our manager and another coworker left the group early to retrieve his SUV and drive up the mountain as far as he could to shorten the distance from the waterfall back to the resort. Three coworkers walked me to the point where our manager picked us up, while the rest of the group took the regular trail down.

Our team collaborated to make this hike enjoyable not only for me, but for all of us. Each person seemed to know instinctively what I, or any of us, needed in the moment. At one point, the team cheered on one of our teammates who has a fear of heights but took the lift up the mountain. Each teammate took turns taking care of each other. This is the core of any work we do in higher education—drawing upon the expertise of colleagues across many disciplines and collaborating to build not only solid policy, but institutions striving to fulfill their educational missions.

 

Making Your Policies Accessible to All Audiences

Most institutions are now aware of the need for recognizing and respecting the differences among the members of our stakeholder communities. As policy administrators, many of us are building equity review into our policy development processes.

Most of us now publish our institutions' policies online and share our policy drafts electronically, rather than in paper policy manuals or through paper documents. Just as it's important to consider adding equity review to the development of policies, it's also important that we consider how to prepare the content for distribution in ways that make it accessible to a wide range of people, including those who use assistive devices.

Here are some considerations for your institutions, all of which we’ve put in place here at Washington State University (WSU):

• Establish a policy and/or procedures for improving the accessibility of online and electronic content. As an example, here at WSU we have an executive policy and supporting procedures:
  • University Web Accessibility Policy
  • Ensuring Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
• Require web accessibility training for all institutional online developers and webmasters.
• Provide issue reporting and complaint/grievance procedures regarding accessibility issues.

At WSU, our Web Communications unit handles web accessibility problems and our institution's ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) coordinator is responsible for managing access complaints and grievances.

Creating Accessible Word and PDF Documents

Most of us use Word to create our source documents and either Word or PDF for drafts and creating web versions of our policies. Taking in consideration of assistive devices, here's some key components for making Word and PDF documents accessible to all:

• Headings:
  • Headings create a hierarchy in the document that a screen reader can follow.
• Document Title, Description, and Tags:
  • A default document title is necessary for a screen reader to be able to scan and read out loud to its user.
  • A document description gives screen reader users a brief summary of the document they are about to read.
  • Document tags allow a screen reader to know if they are looking at an image, a paragraph, a heading, etc.
• Hyperlinks:
  • Hyperlinks need to have clearly defined labels of the destination of each link so that a screen reader is able to read them out loud when scanning the document.
  • It's preferable to embed link URLs (attach the URL in the background to a word or phrase using the Link function), also known as contextual links, rather than writing out URLs in the document.
• Tables:
  • Clear table structures and headers are necessary for a screen reader to be able to scan the document.
• Alt Text:
  • Alt Text data allows a screen reader to scan a description of tables, figures, or images that may be on the document.
• Lists:
  • The built in formatting tools of Word make it easier for the screen reader to scan the document.
• Capitalized Words:
  • Use bold for emphasis and avoiding capitalization of words.
  • Assistive devices may provide capitalized words to users by reading each individual letter, instead of complete words.
• Tab/Reading Order
  • For PDFs, identifying the reading order of a document’s text helps a screen reader present the text as it is meant to be read, rather than just as random blocks of text.
    

Creating Fully Functional PDFs from Word

With the latest versions of Word in Office365, all accessibility functionality in a Word source document may be directly transferred to a PDF version:

• Select File->Save As
• Change the file type (suffix) from the default Word Document (.docx) to PDF (.pdf).
  A PDF file created in this way includes all of your active hyperlinks and other functionality.
  

Creating Accessible Documents from Scanned Images

In order to make scanned document images accessible to a screen reader user, a few things need to be done, otherwise none of the information on the document can be read by a screen reader:

• Make or convert the scanned image to PDF
• Under Tools (in Adobe Acrobat Pro):
  • Select Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
  • Select Text Recognition and In This File, and
  • Select the pages to be included
• Under Tools:
  • Select Action Wizard, then
  • Select Make Accessible
  • Select Find Recognize Text Using OCR
• In the Recognize Text -- General Settings window:
  • Select the applicable language and
  • Select Searchable as the PDF Output Style
• Select OK
  

Accessibility Guides

The process of increasing equity in our policies and policy access is ongoing. Here are some accessibility guides to provide you with further ideas as you get started:

• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
• U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) 18F Accessibility Guide
• WSU Web Communications Accessibility Guides

Considerations for remote and flexible work policies

Many organizations are pivoting to an online or hybrid work environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To adapt, some organizations are developing policies on remote work and flexible schedules.

When developing policies related to remote work, consider impacts on:

• Access to vaccine for those unable to work remotely
• Accessibility of faculty and staff to students
• Connectivity and IT support
• Employee wellness and staying emotionally connected virtually
• Equipment purchasing and lending for remote work
• Equity of individuals allowed to work remotely (front desk staff, senior leadership, etc.)
• Facility and space usage and planning
• Information and records security and privacy
• Performance, conduct and time management
• Workers compensation coverage
• Working out-of-state or out-of-country (tax implications and privacy laws)

Resources

The following articles, while not specifically about higher education, provide useful policy guidelines for our organizations:

• https://www.fedscoop.com/agency-leaders-anticipate-post-pandemic-hybrid-work-environment/
• https://www.density.io/blog/returning-to-workplace-after-covid-19

For Future Thought

• How has your organization responded to the need for policies on remote work and flexible schedules?
• What should other organizations consider when developing remote work policies and procedures?
• How has your experience been working remotely or on-campus during the pandemic?

Part 2: Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

In my last post, I introduced the topic of web accessibility in relation to how we create, edit, and display policy for digital consumption. Regardless of how your institution chooses to display its policies online—whether by PDF, HTML (web layout), Word document, etc.—the content within needs to be presented in a way that conforms to accessibility standards to ensure that all users have equal access to its information. In this article, I’ll dive a little deeper into the basics of web accessibility by discussing some of the most common mistakes users make when creating web content or documents intended for web display.

The following is a summary of the three most common accessibility mistakes I see in institutional policy documents and web content: styles, links, and tables. For each item, I'll include examples of common mistakes and the rationale behind the corrections, to help you better understand the standard as it pertains to policy administration. However, this list is by no means a comprehensive guide to full accessibility compliance. For the full list of accessibility standards, you should refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

Mistake 1: Incorrect Use of Styles

Using heading and paragraph styles incorrectly (or not at all) is perhaps the most common mistake I see when viewing digital content and documents. In a future post, I plan to delve deeper into how to best utilize styles in your document templates to quickly and effortlessly generate fully accessible documents, but for now, I’ll just cover the basics: If you're not using styles in your documents, you should be; and if you are using styles, make sure you're using them correctly.

Proper utilization of text styles (heading, paragraph, emphasis, etc.) is critical for accessible content. Screen readers have to be given instructions to know which content is most important and how it should be organized. When you use styles, you provide screen readers with this information and help visually impaired users navigate through your content more quickly. Using custom formatting in documents without styles (manually changing color, size, font, etc.) causes screen readers to read out cumbersome formatting text to their users, interrupting the flow of information. Using styles incorrectly (usually due to a preference in design over the correct style) causes confusion when screen readers improperly organize the document accordingly.

To avoid this mistake, use descriptive heading and paragraph styles (e.g., Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3, Paragraph, etc.) to designate content organization and hierarchy. Select an appropriate style based on its descriptive name and the content it is defining rather than on its appearance, and don’t skip levels (e.g., using Heading 1 then Heading 3). Styles can always be edited to suit aesthetic preferences or institutional standards.

Mistake 2: The Ambiguous Link

Another accessibility error I see often is non-descriptive link text, or the absence of link text entirely. Hyperlinks should contain a short description of where they are leading, not just “Click here” or the URL of the webpage.

To avoid this mistake, use descriptive link text to provide added context. See the links in my opening paragraphs above for examples of descriptive and relevant hyperlink text. Link text that describes what you are linking to helps readers scan and anticipate where they will go when clicking a link. Link text like “Click here” provides little context to where the link is actually going.

Mistake 3: The Misappropriated Table

This mistake, I am ashamed to admit, is one that my own institution had been unknowingly and egregiously committing in our policy templates and documents for years: using tables as a way to format and control design elements, rather than as a way to logically organize and present tabular information. Complex or misused tables can be difficult for readers to follow and comprehend, especially for screen reader users who have to remember the headers.

To avoid this mistake, format and use simple tables with column and row headers. Split up nested tables into simple tables, and don’t use tables to control design elements or layout. Check to ensure content can be tabbed through in proper reading order and provide alt text for all tables and images.

Other Considerations

Accessibility standards in web content are fairly new phenomena and are constantly evolving to meet the needs of new technologies and diverse groups and individuals. Many higher education institutions and universities that have been around since far before the advent of the digital world, mine included, have been scrambling to bring decades of content up to current times.

This list contains just a few of the most common accessibility issues to watch out for as you create and edit documents for digital consumption. Have you noticed any of the above mistakes or others in your own institution's policies and documents? What are some of the most common accessibility issues your institution has faced?

 

For more information about web accessibility, see my previous post on the Policy Matters blog: An Introduction to Web Accessibility. For the most comprehensive and current guide on web accessibility, refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.