Thread Subject: Re: FW: Subpart A- Draft - Comparable AccessDefinition

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: David Poehlman
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 1:00 PM

This is good news. It means that if we get the standards
recommendations right and the supporting techniquues down, we'll be
providing ba better path to meet the original goal and therefore, we
don't need to explain it further than it already has been.

Thanks for pointing this out.

On Mar 16, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Baker, Robert C. wrote:

The very first line of the Section 508 Standards states:

Subpart A -- General

§ 1194.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). Section 508
requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or
use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with
disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is
comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not
individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be
imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals
with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information
or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that provided to the
public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue
burden would be imposed on the agency.


This statement makes it very clear that the intent of the Section 508
standards is to provide people with disabilities access to the use of
information and data that is comparable to the access available to
non-disabled people with disabilities. The FAQs made available on
the Section508.GOV site provide the further clarification:


B.2. "Comparable access"

i. What must an agency do to ensure its acquisitions of EIT provide
"comparable access"?

Unless an exception applies, an agency’s obligation to provide
comparable access under section 508 is satisfied by acquiring EIT
that meets the applicable technical provisions in Subparts B, C, and
D of the Access Board’s standards, either directly or through
equivalent facilitation (see section B.3, below). Comparable access
is not required if it would impose an undue burden on the agency.
(See sections B.6 and G.6, below.)



Presumably, the authors of both this FAQ assumed that technical
compliance with subparts B,C and D would be sufficient to deliver a
“baseline” level of accessibility that would achieve the original
comparable access goal. Unfortunately – our actual experience with
implementing these provisions has proved otherwise. We have seen
first hand many products that while they technically “conformed” to
the 508 standards, they implemented their accessibility features in
such a way as to make it practically impossible for a person with
disabilities to actually use their application in a comparable manner
to someone who does not have a disability. The most blatant example
is providing a navigation path that requires 30 keystrokes to achieve
the equivalent of one mouse click. Has anyone tried using Yahoo with
a screen reader lately?

Here are some examples what what SSA has come across:

Screen Navigation

Minimum Keystroke target: At SSA, we emphasize to our internal
development teams that functions used commonly in an application
(e.g., Save, Back, Next, Cancel, etc…) should be reachable by
keyboard through a minimum number of keystrokes. We also emphasize
that for a search feature, the user should have a minimum number of
keystrokes to get to the search box, move to results, and to page
back and forth between the results.

Web Forms

Instructional Text: If you look at 508 strictly you could say that
as long the instructional text is "physically" on the screen that is
accessible. SSA has placed an emphasis on allowing the user to move
through that text "productively" with the keyboard as opposed to
being forced to listen to the entire form (and basically memorizing
it on the initial read-through or, in the case of a low-vision user,
perhaps missing it entirely).

Help Text: Example text alongside form controls - e.g. SSN: {form
control} (fill in like ###-##-####) - can bring about a similar
problem. The general focus in 508 from a coding standpoint is that
the label (e.g., SSN) should be tied to the form control, obviously -
however - not having the example text read can be problematic. Once
again this is forcing the blind user to listen to the form initially
or find out when they get an error back (not optimal from a
productivity standpoint).

Data Tables

Visual Summary: 508's focus is on code that ties the data cells to
header cells - which is great for a detailed analysis. But many
visual users tend to look at a data table to get an overall snapshot
of what the data is saying overall in helping them make a decision.
From a productivity standpoint you can see how this could have a
negative impact for the disabled user seeing as they'd always be
forced to work through a data table (as opposed to say having a
textual summary that provides an overall snapshot of the table).

Script elements

Dynamic menus: it is possible to make the elements accessible to the
assistive technology (e.g., keyboard access, readable) which is what
508 asks for. But a number of times the functionality of being able
to expand/collapse menus and move between sub-menus is lost, thus,
hindering their productivity.


Unless you are in the business of trying to implement accessible
technology with real disabled users – the subtlety of these
distinctions can easily be lost. It is not lost at SSA – which
currently employees over 1,500 employees with disabilities, and
through its e-GOV initiatives – makes available its benefit services
to a significant number of Americans with disabilities. Far beyond
dealing with individual 504 accommodation issues – if an Agency like
SSA rolls out a product that is “technically” compliant with the
applicable provisions in subparts B,C & D, but that product achieves
this compliance in a way that is not truly comparable to the access
available to non-disabled employees, significant employment barriers
can quickly be raised. SSA, like many agencies, must always do more
with less – which means placing a greater emphasis on using
technology to make employees more productive. Employees who are not
provided comparable access will not be as productive.

The results can be troubling and disconcerting. Employees with
disabilities who are not provided tools which enable them to match or
at least come close to matching the productivity of their non-
disabled peers can get looked over for promotions, have their work
responsibilities curtailed, and possibly even have their entire job
taken away from them in exchange for another “less demanding
position”. Moreover – mangers who would normally consider hiring
people with disabilities may take into consideration the
accessibility of their work environment, leading many to make
discriminatory hiring decisions. At SSA, we are extremely diligent
in trying to ensure these scenarios do not become reality. However
– a lack of appreciation for this issue in the standards and in the
vendor community sometimes makes it difficult to make the right
decisions to ensure that discrimination does not occur.

While these issues may be difficult to quantify in a legal statute –
we have to ask ourselves why the 508 standards even matter if they
can be implemented in a way that does not achieve the original
purpose of the law – to provide access to and use of information and
data that is comparable to the access and use by people who do not
have disabilities.

Therefore, I agree with Deborah that some attempt at creating a
definition for comparable access is needed.

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