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: Jonathan Avila
Date: May 18, 2016 12:03PM

Brooks wrote:

> 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.

To clarify I did not say or mean to imply that WCAG guidelines were included in the ACS requirements -- In my post I mentioned the functional performance objectives and then said this about web based serviced providers The FCC hinted in their report and order that following the WCAG 2 A and AA guidelines would likely allow a provider to meet the obligations -- but as you point out it's not required and it's not a given -- but likely a good case for the provider to argue."

The functional performance objectives of 47 CFR 14.21 are the criteria that must be used (when achievable) to measure compliance the requirements -- and I agree, congress did not give the FCC the authority to make technical requirements and yes there is no safe harbor by using WCAG 2. Having said that though, the FCC acknowledges the following in paragraph 85 of the report and order

"As is the case with manufacturers, providers of ACS are responsible for ensuring the accessibility of the underlying components of the service, to the extent that doing so is achievable. For example, a provider of a web-based e-mail service could meet its obligations by ensuring its services are coded to web accessibility standards (such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)177), if achievable." (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt paragraph 85)

Brooks wrote
> 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.

The ACS report and order states in paragraph 4
"The Report and Order requires manufacturers and service providers subject to Section 716 to comply with the requirements of Section 716 either by building accessibility features into their equipment or service or by relying on third party applications or other accessibility solutions."

Thus, there is industry flexibility to allow service providers to rely on accessibility features and nominal cost assistive technology. For example, in theory a service provider could rely on a style sheet plug-in to improve the contrast of a site or rely on an accessibility feature of a browser such as high contrast mode as long as it was nominal cost and was supported for the life time of the product/service or a replacement was made available. While I would like to see accessibility built into a product or service the ACS requirements allow for flexibility. One common example that is allowed by the current ACS requirements and even the and the separate WCAG is to rely on the browser to provide resize of text up to 200% without assistive technology. That is sites do not need to natively provide text sizing controls or even relative font sizes as long as the text can resized without loss of content or functionality up to 200% with browser zoom.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
<EMAIL REMOVED>
703.637.8957 (Office)
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!