WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Why was software (user agents and authoring tools) left out of the recent SANPRM for the ADA by the DOJ?

for

From: Brooks Newton
Date: May 17, 2016 12:59PM

Jonathan,

Based on your comment, I think it is important to further emphasize one of the primary differences between the CVAA and other Web accessibility regulations. The CVAA uses a set of performance objectives to measure compliance for Advanced Communication Systems (ACS), not a technical standard, such as WCAG 2.0. I didn't get that distinction from your latest post. What I got from your post is that WCAG 2.0 Level A or AA compliance will likely get an organization out of trouble based on a user complaint. I've got to say, that is not at all the way I understand it. I also want to clarify another critical point about the CVAA. The law assumes that qualifying ACS, such as online chat and other Web-based messaging systems, should be natively accessible. Yep, that is right, natively accessible without the aid of additional software, such as help from third party assistive technology. As you rightly pointed out, ACS manufacturers can rely on low-cost software to assist the ACS in meeting its performance objectives, but the chat room site owner, for example, is responsible for making sure the third party AT always supports the accessibility of the ACS. The moment the AT stops supporting the accessibility of the ACS, the ACS owner is on the hook for either providing access through another low-cost software solution, or they must magically invent a native means of meeting the performance objectives in the CVAA.

Long story short, Congress chose to put ACS owners on the hook bigtime, and severely limited support from software to make the Web-based communication tools accessible to people with disabilities. That's pretty hardcore, and frankly, flies in the face of what most of us in the digital accessibility industry know about the role of operating systems, user agents and assistive technology: they are integral to the accessible online experience for many people. I'm bringing up the CVAA because it is the last major piece of federal digital accessibility legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, and will likely have some level of influence on how legislation / regulation on the horizon will lean, such as the Title II and Title III ADA updates.

Here's some text from the CVAA Sections 716 and 717 Report and Order, dated October 7, 2011 - I think this is the document you were referring to in your post.

From Section 213 of the Report and Order: Background. Section 716(e)(1)(D) of the Act provides that the Commission "shall . . . not mandate technical standards, except that the Commission may adopt technical standards as a safe harbor for such compliance if necessary to facilitate the manufacturers' and service providers' compliance" with the accessibility and compatibility requirements in Section 716.583.

From Section 214: ... In light of the concerns raised in the record, the Commission proposed not to adopt any technical standards as safe harbors, and sought comment on its proposal.

Here's a link to relevant CVAA Report and Order pdf file for those who want to read the document directly: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf#page’

Anybody else in the know want to comment? What am I missing here? I'm completely open to varying perspectives on this and all issues.

Thanks,

Brooks Newton