Section 508: Perspectives from the State Level

• Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D.
• National Association of State Chief Information Officers
• Missouri Assistive Technology

Missouri’s Legal Framework

• State statute requires access similar to 508
  • Covers state agencies and public higher ed
  • Vests oversight with CIO and AT Council
  • Requires STATE adoption of access standards
• Used Section 508 technical standards as base
  • Adopted software, desktop/portable & documentation
  • Modified web, telecom, video & multimedia
  • Did not adopt self-contained or functional standards

Modifications to standards

• Web – Changed requirement for 100% synchronized text equivalent provided for every non-text element to phase in levels to get to 100% (live web cast problem, higher ed issues - revisiting schedule now...)
• Telecom – Added specific reference to voice mail/IVR access via relay to ensure access for VCO and HCO users who may or may not be covered by “direct TTY access.”
• Added reference to maximum output (125 dB SPL) and reference to volume reset only when capable of greater than 18 dB gain (attempt to harmonize with FCC).
• Multimedia – Revised requirement for 100% captioning and video description to phase in levels to get to 100% and exempted television broadcasts (deferred to FCC requirements)

General Issues

• Coverage of state agencies with similar role and function (bureaucratic)
  • Much more complicated when applied to higher ed, K-12 and others
  • Gallaudet, DoD K-12 schools, expansive distance education efforts, etc.
• Unique issues with captioning and video description
  • Require built in for all or allow to add when needed?  (closed distance ed courses, taping of training for absentee employees)
  • Captioning doesn’t deliver access (young children, ASL need)
• Concept of “line of products” not included in 508 (is in 255)
  • Calculators
  • Glucometers, thermometers, etc.
  • Amplified telephones

Specific Procurement Issues

• How do you verify conformance to the access standards?
• How do you rate the degree access?
• How does the access rating fit into overall procurement decision making?

Verifying Conformance to the Access Standards

• Option 1 – Vendor assurance of 100% conformance
  • + Easy for state, liability shift to vendor (no cost fix)
  • - Limited commercial availability, naive vendor assurance
• Option 2 – Vendor provided data, state review
  • + Balanced responsibility between vendors and state
  • - Poor data from vendor, requires expertise to do reviews, requires consistent review procedures to be valid
• Option 3 – Direct product testing
  • + Consistent, defendable results (if protocols are valid & reliable)
  • - Extremely high resource demand: technical expertise, testing protocol development, standards should be “testable”
  • - 3rd party testing labs, timelines, conflict of interest (voting)

Examples of Paper Responses

Standard:  When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a keyboard...

• “Most system functions can be executed via the keyboard.”
• “Product is designed to use the mouse; however the keyboard can also be used to navigate the application.”
• “Functions are executable from the keyboard unless specifically designed to work with a mouse control.”

Standard: Sufficient information about a user interface element, including the identify, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology.

• “If the user is able to use assistive technology with the operating system, then they should be able to use our software.”
• “Users with access needs will use the features provided by the browser.”

Access Rating and Decision-Making

Procurement decision-making typically includes:

• Cost (objective assignment of points/value)
• Performance (ability to meet business needs, subjective rating)
• Conformance to access standards
  • Rarely results in “met – not met” outcome
  • Usually subjective rating of some form in “degrees”

How is accessibility review/rating done?

• Points assigned to each access standard or holistic rating?
• Are all standards in an area (software) equally important to access?
• If not, how should the standards be weighed to yield a valid rating?

How should access review/rating influence the final decision?

• Where does the access rating fit in best value decision-making?
• Is there a bottom cut-off where nothing “best meets” access standards?

Examples

• Voter Registration System (custom app based on COTS product)
  • 297 Technical Specs, including 29 web and software access standards.
  • If each is weighed equally (access part of business needs review) access rating would have had no real impact in decision-making.
  • If use 3 ratings (cost = 50, business need = 30, access = 20) access rating has more influence, but still easily overrun by other ratings.
  • To ensure some baseline level of accessibility, the review/rating could include an “unacceptable” option reflecting an access rating so low that regardless of other factors the product was not procured.
• Court Case and Docket Management System (mostly COTS)
  • Three bids – costs almost the same, A and B are acceptable for technical specs but unacceptable accessibility, C is not acceptable for technical specs and barely adequate for access.
  • “Best meets” for access alone would purchase product C.  Best meets access combined with business need would allow for purchase of inaccessible A or B.

What would help?

• Clearly understood technical access standards with valid mechanisms for rating conformance
  • Binary individual rating with all standards equal in weight; or
  • Identified relative weight of each standard within the group
  • Reliable, valid review procedures (rating systems, etc.)
• Clearly defined role of accessibility in the procurement process
  • Some way to ensure a baseline level of access is delivered without sacrificing business need and cost considerations
  • Clearly understood and communication role of each in decision making to support transparency of process