Thread Subject: Re: Group B: 22(k) Text-only page

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Fratkin, Mike
Date: Thu, Nov 16 2006 6:55 AM

It is not really a device but another piece of assistive software.
Sure, it would be nice if screen readers could read images, but they can
speak the results of the OCR process. This would require extra steps.
The bottom line, however, is that a FAX or a scanned image is only as
accessible as the source document. SSA looked at 20 different document
types and after they were OCR'd the error rates were as follows:

Typed 6.5%
Typed with notes 6.1%
Faxes 14.4%
Pictures and graphs 23.4%
Handwritten 36.2%
EKG 49.7%

So, depending on the nature of the job, the accuracy is very important.
The documents that we are working with currently from doctors,
hospitals, clinics, etc. is in every format possible, so at the present
time will be very difficult to be usable.

Mike Fratkin

[Tom Brett wrote] If an alternative device is being used to read the OCR
and speak the TIFF images, it would seem to me that this would not be
comparable access. This would be an accommodation for people with
disabilities.
Shouldn't the image be directly accessible via the screen reader?

Tom Brett,
Section 508 Coordinator
US Office of Personnel Management
Rm 6H34A
2026061206 (v)
2026062582 (tty)
Disabled does not mean Unable
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Fratkin, Mike
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:44 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group B: 22(k) Text-only page

This is an issue SSA faces every day as we are making "electronic" about
350 million pages a year of medical evidence. We do have a procedure to
use Kurzweil as a virtual print driver that will OCR and speak the TIFF
images. However, the source of the document is the real issue and until
we standardize on making health records electronic, we will continue to
see this issue. There seems to also be a growing tendency to scan other
types of paper documents to PDF or TIFF format and again the source is
the key to being accessible. Beyond the issues of handwritten
information and notes are tables, forms, EKG's, etc. SSA has been
working on this for the past two years and have been able to provide
some capabilities but for the most part technology and other solutions
are not quite there yet.

Mike Fratkin
Social Security Administration (SSA)


[Tom Brett wrote] This seems the appropriate place to bring up an issue
that I face.

What should happen when a paper document is scanned into a TIFF of PDF
format and then displays the images on a web site? I am not aware of
any screen reader that is capable of reading those images. There is
technology that will extract the OCR from the images and present that
OCR to a person with disabilities, however even with the best scanning
technology we are only talking about 92-96% accuracy. This accuracy is
only for the typed text from the original document and would not include
hand written notes or signatures.

Tom Brett,
Section 508 Coordinator
US Office of Personnel Management
Rm 6H34A
2026061206 (v)
2026062582 (tty)
Disabled does not mean Unable
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
Thatcher
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:38 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group B: 22(k) Text-only page

Proposal:

22(k) Alternate versions of pages which comply with these provisions
with equivalent information and functionality shall be provided when
compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the
alterative pages shall be updated whenever the primary pages change and
available with the same ease as the primary pages.

The reason for this proposal is to remove the phrase "text only" which
is inappropriate, and, in essence, replace it with "compliant."

I fear that "available with the same ease" is not readily testable.

Here, for reference is the current WCAG Success Criterion related to
this.

4.2.1 At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success
criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 1 success
criteria may be available from the same URI. [How to meet 4.2.1]

Jim

Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University