April 2008
NOTE: This report is a set of recommendations from the Advisory Committee to the Access Board. Any proposed revisions to the Section 508 standards or the Section 255 accessibility guidelines will be made through the Federal rulemaking process. This report is not a regulation.
Developed for:
U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary
2 Summary of Recommendations
3 Background
4 Updates to the Standard and Guidelines
5 Implementation Recommendations
6 The Recommendations
7 Provisions Considered but Not Achieving Consensus
8 Source and Harmonization of Recommendations
9 Annexes
This report contains a set of recommended standards and guidelines that the Access Board may use to update regulations that implement two laws regarding accessible information and communication technology (ICT): Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Communications Act of 19961. These two laws help to form the legal backbone of accessibility in the American information and communications technology (ICT) environment. In broad terms, Section 508 requires federal agencies to use accessibility as a selection criterion when procuring ICT, while the Access Board’s Section 255 requires certain telecommunications–related equipment and services to be designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, if readily achievable.2
Federal agencies, consumers, technology manufacturers and many others now have several years of experience working within those regulations, years in which technology evolved on many fronts, additional accessibility standards arose, and the technology of accessibility has been transformed.
In 2006 the Access Board directed its staff to revise and update the accessibility standards for E&IT covered under Section 508 and the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered under Section 255 and to harmonize the updated standards with international accessibility standards.3 In order to effectively update these regulations, the Access Board consulted with various stakeholders:
Recognizing that accessibility is emerging as an important issue globally and that other countries are also developing and implementing accessibility standards, representatives from three other countries and the European Commission were also included in the consultation. The Access Board established the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) comprised of 41 organizations representing the various stakeholders. (The members of the Committee are listed in Annex 9.1.) TEITAC is a formal federal advisory committee, managed under the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
This report reflects the deliberations and recommendations of the TEITAC (The Committee). The principal content of this report is a set of recommended updates to the Section 508 Standard and the Section 255 Guidelines that commercial vendors and Federal departments and agencies use to develop, procure, maintain, or use E&IT and telecommunications products and services (Section 6). This report proposes standards needed so that people with disabilities might achieve access and use of information comparable to that of people without disabilities.
Manufacturers and providers of ICT products need to be able to make design choices and R&D investments with a clear understanding of the direct or indirect accessibility mandates under Sections 508 and 255. Federal officials in turn need to develop, procure, use, and maintain E&IT based on verifiable, and up-to-date accessibility standards. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is required by Section 508 to measure and report to Congress the extent to which the Federal Government complies with the Section 508 standard. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to be able to respond to informal and formal complaints concerning compliance of telecommunications products and services under Section 255 and to initiate its own actions. People with disabilities, whether Federal employees or the general public, should be confident in their ability to access telecommunications and federal information. We hope that these stakeholders will be aided by the Committee recommendations.
The Committee recognizes that Federal agencies and consumers with disabilities need to benefit from advances in technology. The pace of technological advancement in ICT is rapid and the level of innovation is high. In this environment, a static standard consisting of design specification and fixed checklists would tend to stifle innovation and to delay the availability of technology advancements to people with disabilities. At the same time, clear and specific standards may ease compliance. To balance these needs, this report recommends provisions that explicitly address alternative technical approaches. All of these provisions, we believe, describe the required types of accessibility features. Some refer to specific accessibility features that are known to be both feasible and effective. Federal agency compliance with the procurement process will encourage and give incentives to manufactures and providers to meet and hopefully exceed these requirements, and will help foster innovation and improvement in accessibility.
2.1 Subpart A
2.2 Subpart B - Functional Performance Criteria
2.3 New Organization of the Technical Requirements in Subpart C
2.4 Sections on Support and Implementation in Subpart D
2.5 New Advisory Notes
2.6 Provisions Considered, But Not Recommended
2.7 Applying the Recommendations to Sections 508 and 255
Information and communications technology (ICT) that is accessible to and usable by people with disabilities allows the performance of regular operating functions of the ICT, including input and control functions, operation of mechanical mechanisms, and access to information displayed in visual and auditory form.4 Interfacing with assistive technology (AT) used by people with disabilities to access ICT is important to providing access to ICT. The ICT and AT should use documented interfaces to interoperate with each other, and where possible not interfere with each other.
The provisions recommended in this report apply to a full range of ICT, consistent with the applicable statues, including those used for communication, duplication, computing, storage, presentation, control, transport and production. Our goal is to make these products accessible to as wide a range of people with disabilities as possible including people with:
Subpart A includes material that explains how the provisions are to be used including:
2.2 Subpart B - Functional Performance Criteria
Subpart B includes the Functional Performance Criteria (FPC), which refer to different disability categories and the necessity of providing access to the functionality of products. The FPC have been modified from the previous version. They now include a note on the role of assistive technology in meeting the Functional Performance Criteria. However, there is an unresolved issue of when and how the criteria are used, which the Committee is sending to the Access Board for its consideration and final decision.
The FPC now precede the Technical Provisions because they help frame the Technical Provisions. The move of the FPC to this location was a topic of much discussion for the Committee. Their position in this document, as a report to the Access Board and not a regulation by itself, has no implications for interpretation or enforcement.
2.3 New Organization of the Technical Requirements in Subpart C
General Technical Requirements
Requirements for Hardware Aspects of Products
Requirements for User Interfaces and Electronic Content
Additional Requirements for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
Requirements for Audio and/or Video Content
Additional Requirements for Real-time Voice Conversation Functionality
Additional Requirements for Authoring Tools
The organization of the technical requirements in the current Section 508 standard no longer matches the types of ICT products currently or likely to become available. The groupings in the standard currently in force are based on product types such as web, software, and telecommunications. Since the time that these groups were first created, however, many of these technologies have evolved and many of their various functions have converged and overlapped. It has become difficult to determine which provisions should be applied to a product using the current organization of the provisions5. An example of this is how telephones have changed from a device used to talk to another person, to a tool for accessing the web and reading emails. We also concluded that the organizational structures of the Section 255 guidelines and Section 508 standards would not work for harmonization or current product designs.
We therefore re-arranged the technical requirements in Subpart C into categories based on product characteristics or features. This allowed us to address the convergence of features and functionality in ICT. Instead of attempting to define the difference, for example, between “software” and a “web application,” provisions are organized by how the products are constructed and used. This, and other similar groupings in the report, was done to eliminate duplication of requirements, and make it easier for designers to ignore or skip over provisions that did not relate to their products. The categories are as follows:
General Technical Requirements
This is a new category that consolidates provisions that apply to all ICT to eliminate duplication of requirements that appeared in more than one section under the current Standard.
Requirements for Hardware Aspects of Products
These provisions apply to any ICT with hardware and have been broken down into two groups. The “All Products with Hardware” group of provisions applies to all products with hardware. The “If the Product has Speech Output or Throughput” group applies only to hardware for ICT with speech output or throughput, to ensure that products do not interfere with hearing technologies, and include appropriate audio connections and controls and limits for volume.
Requirements for User Interfaces and Electronic Content
Technological changes have brought web and software interfaces into close correspondence. In some cases a web-based application offers the same functionality as an application installed on a computer. At the same time, electronic content has posed a problem for end users, content authors, and Section 508 officials concerned when electronic content is considered E&IT and subject to Section 508 technical requirements and functional performance criteria. The Access Board asked the Committee to address both issues.
The interface behavior of physical products, such as the relationship between button presses and the contents of a copier’s display, is a function both of the hardware and the software, with the software controlling the behavior. This interaction risks creating duplicate requirements in the hardware and software sections of the Standard.
Our response was to develop recommendations to harmonize the requirements for user interfaces and electronic content. The provisions in this section apply to any electronic content, including web pages or other documents and information, and to any software and web user interfaces. The definition of content includes as examples: word processing files, presentation files, spreadsheet files, text files, portable document files, and web based content.
There was a difference of opinion on the Committee as to whether the provisions in this section should apply to hardware user interfaces, or only to software. One view is that provisions in this section came from the current Section 508 requirements for Software Applications and Operating Systems (Section 508 1194.21), the Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (Section 508 1194.22), or the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and therefore should not apply to hardware displays. The other point of view is that the behavior of hardware is controlled by software so this section applies to the interface aspects of hardware.
Additional Requirements for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
These provisions apply to ICT that includes audio-visual player or display functions (including products such as televisions, tuners, computer equipment, web browser plug-ins, software players, and kiosks). They include requirements to ensure that captions and supplemental audio playback (for example, video description) are available, and that there is equivalent access to these features.
Requirements for Audio and/or Video Content
These provisions apply to content that includes audio, video, or both audio and video, including both pre-recorded and real-time audio. They include requirements for captions and video description, as well as an equivalent way of selecting interactive elements in synchronized media, previously often referred to as multimedia.
Additional Requirements for Real-time Voice Conversation Functionality
These provisions apply to any software or hardware that provides the ability for voice conversation in real time. They include requirements for real-time text (RTT), voice conversation via interconnected VoIP, voice messaging and other interactive voice systems, caller ID, and real-time video communication. Although many of these requirements originally came from Section 255, they also apply to ICT products covered by Section 508 that include telecommunications-like functionality.
Additional Requirements for Authoring Tools
These new provisions apply to authoring tools, defined as “software intended to create or modify content for publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user interface and content provisions.” They include requirements for how these tools support the creation of accessible content.
2.4 Sections on Support and Implementation in Subpart D
Information, Documentation and Support
Implementation, Operation and Maintenance
These provisions address how ICT is deployed for use in federal agencies after procurement.
Information, Documentation and Support
These provisions cover product documentation and technical support. New provisions were added to clarify the types of things that need to be documented and the kinds of support and training that must be accessible.
Implementation, Operation and Maintenance
During the Committee’s deliberations it became clear that an accessible product may need to be set up in a particular way so as to provide the benefit of the accessibility to the federal employee or member of the public with a disability. These new provisions refer to specific actions that must be taken subsequent to procurement by agencies in order to expose the accessibility to the product’s users. Many of these provisions apply only to Section 508.
In some cases, the Committee agreed on the need for a provision, but could not agree on how to write the requirement with sufficient precision. In other cases, the Committee concluded that an issue could be better addressed as an advisory note issued by the Access Board. These recommendations are gathered in one place for convenience. They are written as guidelines, using “should” rather than “must” to indicate that they are best practice rather than provisions.
2.6 Provisions Considered, But Not Recommended
In the course of the Committee’s deliberations we discussed many ideas for provisions that did not become a final recommendation. Most of these were factored into other provisions, or were discarded as unnecessary. A small number of provisions were considered by the Committee, and had one or more advocates, and one or more opponents. Those provisions are recorded here, in order to deliver a true report of the Committee’s deliberations and the range of positions taken on issues raised.
2.7 Applying the Recommendations to Sections 508 and 255
One of the charges to the Committee was to update both the Section 508 Standard and the Section 255 Guidelines at the same time. Some of the individual provisions that applied to each of these laws were in conflict, and both were in need of significant technological updating, especially concerning text communication and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Access Board staff suggested that the Committee create, if possible, a single harmonized set of consistent requirements that could be applied for both contexts.
The Committee looked at the guidelines originally developed by the Access Board, many of which were adopted by the FCC. The FCC rules apply to information and documentation associated with the covered products, as well as information and documentation necessary to use the covered products. This information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support and communications. (47 CFR §§6.11 and 7.11). Finally, the Commission’s rules cover equipment used for voicemail or interactive menu services (47 CFR §7.1)
The Committee formed a Task Force to work on 255/508 differences and develop harmonized proposals where possible, or separate text where necessary. The Committee accepted the Task Force report, which determined that the recommendations generally apply to both Section 508 and Section 255, except in some specific provisions. In cases where the separate environments of the two regulations require it, the provisions explicitly document this, either within the text of a recommended provision, as a note attached to a provision, or in other text.
Specifically, the Committee agreed that technical standards that would improve the accessibility of any of the items covered by Section 255, whether a phone or VoIP device, a printed user guide, or a web-based billing function, are candidates for inclusion in the Access Board’s Section 255 guidelines.
We believe that this report renders the Committee's best judgment on these issues, and points towards significant opportunities for harmonization. At the same time we have explicitly called out situations and applications that should refer to the separate environments in which Section 255 and Section 508 operate, either within the text of a recommended provision, as a note attached to a provision, or in other text.
Section 508 was created in 1986 when Congress added this section to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Rehabilitation Act contains comprehensive prohibitions against employment discrimination by the Federal government, 29 U.S.C. §791, by contractors for the Federal government, 29 U.S.C. §793, and by programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. §794. In the 1980’s Federal agencies significantly increased their dependency on electronic office technologies. Section 508 was added to ensure that such E&IT would be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Pub. L. 99-506, Title VI, §603(a); Title I §103(d)(2)(A), (C), as amended, Pub. L 100-630, Title II, §206(f); Pub. L. 102-569, Title V §509(a), codified at 29 U.S.C. §794d.
Section 508 guidelines were initially released in October 1987, and adopted by the GSA in Sept 1988. In January 1991 the GSA published Bulletin C-8 containing these guidelines as amended, in the Federal Information Resources Management System (FIRMR). In April 1987, the GSA had published Bulletin 48 in the FIRMR that sets forth requirements for agencies to provide accommodations designed to meet the needs of employees with disabilities when replacing the agencies’ computer systems.
In 1997, the Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Compliance Act was introduced and incorporated into the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, revising Section 508 through the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Pub. L. 105-220, Title IV, §408(b), codified at 29 U.S.C. §794d. Section 508 places strict requirements on Federal agencies that develop, procure, maintain, or use EI&IT that is accessed by both Federal employees with disabilities and individuals with disabilities outside the government who need government information, unless doing so would impose an undue burden. The law specifically directs Federal agencies to provide access to information and data to people with disabilities that is comparable to the access available to individuals without disabilities. Where providing access would result in an undue burden, agencies are directed to (1) provide documentation on why compliance will create an undue burden and (2) provide the information and data through an alternative means of access.
The amended version of Section 508 directed the Access Board to publish standards by setting forth (1) a definition of electronic and information technology, and (2) technical and functional performance criteria necessary to achieve electronic and information access. The definition of electronic and information technology established by the Access Board had to be consistent with the definition of information technology contained in the Clinger-Cohen Act. 40 U.S.C. §1401(3). This was completed through the formation of the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Advisory Committee (EITAAC). The revised provisions of Section 508 went into effect in June 2001. The Attorney General also prepared the first biennial report to the
President on the extent to which electronic and information technology available within agency was accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council was to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each Federal agency had to revise its own Federal procurement policies and directives to incorporate the new Section 508 standards. The amended Section 508 allows individuals to file complaints against Federal agencies alleging noncompliance with Section 508 in procurements or for an agency award to be protested by a contractor or vendor bidding on a contract. Agencies receiving such complaints are directed to utilize their existing complaint procedures for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
A separate law, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, Pub.L.100-407, later replaced by the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, Pub.L.108-364, 29 U.S.C. §3001 and now known as the AT Act, requires States to provide an assurance of their compliance with Section 508 as a condition to receiving Federal funds for the State Grants for Assistive Technology. The 2004 amendments to the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, clarified the scope specifying that the assurance apply only to the State Assistive Technology Program. However, many states have adopted or adapted Section 508 accessibility requirements in state law, executive order, legislation, or other policy initiatives. As a result, the new Section 508 standards will have wide reaching impact at the state level.
Section 255 was enacted as part of the amendments to the Communications Act of 1934, contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, codified at 47 U.S.C. This section requires telecommunications services and equipment to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, where readily achievable.6 Where not readily achievable, such services and equipment must nevertheless be compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment (CPE) commonly used by people with disabilities to achieve access to telecommunications, again where this is readily achievable. Readily achievable is defined as "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense." In determining whether an access feature is readily achievable, the FCC has directed entities to weigh the nature and cost of that feature with the overall financial resources of the manufacturer or service provider, including such factors as the type, size, and nature of that company’s operation.7 The legislation contemplates that manufacturers and service providers will consider access needs during the design, development and fabrication of their offerings, as well as whenever a natural opportunity to review the design of the service or product arises, so that expensive and burdensome retrofitting for access will not be necessary.
Section 255 directed the Access Board to develop guidelines for accessibility of telecommunications equipment and CPE within eighteen months after the legislation’s enactment. In order to accomplish this task, the Access Board created a body similar to EITAAC – called the Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee, or TAAC. After meeting over a period of seven months, TAAC presented its proposed guidelines to the Access Board in January of 1997. The contents of these proposals formed the basis for the Access Board’s Section 255 guidelines, released to the public on February 3, 1998, 63 Fed. Reg. 5608 (Feb. 3, 1998) codified at 36 C.F.R. Part 1193, and effective as of March 5, 1998. The FCC then used these guidelines to develop its regulations to implement Section 255’s mandates for telecommunications equipment and service providers. Those rules, released in September 1999, also created procedures to enforce Section 255’s provisions with respect to telecommunications services, telecommunications equipment, and CPE.
The Access Board’s guidelines on Section 255 created detailed requirements for the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment and CPE. 36 C.F.R. §1193 et. seq. Among other things, the guidelines contain requirements for input, output, display, control, and mechanical functions to be accessible by individuals with varying disabilities and functional limitations. The compatibility requirements focus on the need for standard connectors, compatibility of controls with prosthetics, and TTY compatibility. In order to identify access needs and solutions, the guidelines directed manufacturers to consider consulting with individuals with disabilities, and suggested including individuals with disabilities in market research and the validation of access solutions. The rules defined "usable" as access to information about how to use the product, and directed that "instructions, product information … documentation, and technical support" be functionally equivalent to that which is provided to individuals without disabilities. In order to monitor the industry’s progress in making telecommunications equipment accessible, in January 2000, the Access Board compiled and released a "market monitoring report," that identified the state of the art of CPE and telecommunications equipment, as well as problem areas and solutions that have been used to achieve access to these products.
4
Updates to the Standard and Guidelines
4.1 Federal Agency and Consumer Experiences Driving the Refresh
4.2 Technological Changes Driving the 255/508 Refresh
4.3 Harmonization
4.4 Economic Impact
Improvements in ICT accessibility have come from many sources: how people use technology, how technology itself changes, and how products change must all be taken into consideration. The intent of Sections 255 and 508 is to enhance and improve the accessibility of ICT to Federal employees and to the general public. The Committees recommendations are designed to encourage agencies to consider and show preference for these improved alternatives as they are introduced.
Concurrent with the development of the Committees recommendations, other national and international standards and guidelines are being developed. The Committee has referred to some of these standards and guidelines below. Others are expected to be cited by the Access Board in technical assistance to Federal agencies. There are significant benefits in harmonizing with these international standards. Such harmonization creates a larger marketplace demanding accessibility solutions, thereby attracting more offerings and increasing the likelihood of commercial availability of highly accessible ICT options.
Accessibility is receiving increasing attention and priority throughout the world. This heightened interest suggests further investments and advancements in accessibility technologies in many countries and across multiple scientific disciplines. As these advancements progress, the Access Board (or other appropriate body) should review and update the Federal accessibility standards to reflect the advancing state of the art. Because ICT is a global market, the harmonization with international standards and guidelines where appropriate may also benefit agencies, service providers, manufacturers, and people with disabilities by reducing costs that would be associated with designing and developing different products to meet conflicting requirements in different markets.
4.1 Federal Agency and Consumer Experiences Driving the Refresh
The Committee received several presentations from agency Section 508 coordinators and others. We were repeatedly reminded that although the Committee is composed of experts on accessibility, there are hundreds or even thousands of non-experts to whom these regulations are important. This includes agency staff responsible for carrying out the provisions, ICT vendors voluntarily supplying compliance information or reports, as well as millions of consumers, federal employees, and members of the public with disabilities. The experience of these stakeholders with the current Section 255 guidelines and Section 508 regulations should be carefully factored into any refreshed regulations and guidelines.
Below is a list of the issues raised in this context. Where possible, the Committee made an effort to address and solve the problem noted. However, some of the issues were beyond the scope of the Committee.
The following were discussed:
The following was considered to be out of scope:
The following were discussed but the Committee could not agree on how to resolve:
4.2 Technological Changes Driving the 255/508 Refresh
Introduction
Since the first Section 255 guidelines and Section 508 standard were developed, the pace of technological change has been rapid. This change, as it affects accessibility, falls into two categories: changes to products themselves and changes in the accessibility environment.
First, products themselves have undergone radical evolution and convergence in many cases. For example, of the six product categories used in the current Section 508 standard, virtually all have undergone significant changes that have thrown the current descriptions into question. The rise of web-based applications has blurred the line between "software" and "web" to a great degree, and software development itself is now performed on a cascading hierarchy of interoperating tools and platforms. "Telecommunications," is now used to deliver a much wider array of products and services than before. In addition to voice, text or video communication capabilities can be found in many ICT products or services. Desktop computers are no longer the only information processing hardware, mobile devices with radically different input and output characteristics now fill this role. Audible and visual media, synchronized or not, are now provided over many distribution paths, both as a permanent record and as a network service. Some formerly closed product types are now open, while some formerly open product types are now closed, more or less by policy rather than technology; digital rights management is a new and important consideration for manufacturers and content providers.
Second, accessibility barriers that were severe at the time when these regulations were first drafted, and thus the subject of intense interest, have been either resolved or rendered less relevant in the current technology environment. For example the accessibility of online forms has been improved to the point that, if the designers themselves use the proper approach, the tools themselves no longer prevent the design of accessible forms. This problem was a serious obstacle to participation in e-government at the time the current version of the Section 508 standard was developed; Provision 1194.22(n) specifically addresses online forms. The Committee also felt that a more general user interface approach would be better than addressing all interface categories (of which online forms are only one) individually. In this we have followed the practice of the Web Accessibility Initiative as well as other accessibility efforts.
Specific technologies
Below are some examples of technologies whose introduction is altering the landscape of accessibility.8 Some of these innovations may offer improved accessibility to some users while jeopardizing others. Because of these changes, awareness of capacities of technology to be used by wider audiences has increased, and resources to provide information and data in more accessible ways are more ubiquitous to assistive technology producers. This also means that assistive technology vendors and information technology vendors need to improve methods of interoperability to allow for each specialty group to do what they do best.
1. Web applications and web-software convergence. Web content has shifted from the presentation of more or less static information to full-fledged applications with complex user interfaces. For example, there are now word processors and spreadsheets with virtually all the features of installed software that exist entirely on the web. In fact, the Committee made use of such tools in managing its work. This change has reduced the distinction between “software” and “web” provisions.
2. Convergence in hardware, especially mobile devices. Multipurpose mobile devices have largely replaced voice-only mobile phones, some amount of text, video, navigation, web browsing, and/or media playing capabilities are features on mobile phones. In some mobile phones, it is necessary to navigate through an IT like layer (usually Section 508 only) to get to the telephony functionality (Sections 255 and 508). Some of these functions may not be covered by either Section 255 or 508 in all cases.
3. Changes to the concepts of "self-contained," "closed" products. This category had been established to require accessible functionality where users could not be expected to install AT accommodations. However, more and more products are software-defined, and have added some openness to modifications of the user interface. At the same time digital rights management (DRM) has closed some functionality of otherwise open products. The Committee had difficulty in finding a structure and a terminology to reflect the changes to both personal and public/shared products; we recognize that there are now “closed product functionality” rather than fully-closed products.
4. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The growth of internet-based telephony has complicated accessibility regulations. There are a variety of VoIP applications available. There are different relationships to the existing public switched telephone network, some of which are managed only by the end user. Text and video have been added to some voice services, and all have been integrated with each other and with messaging and notification services.
5. Multitouch and gesture interfaces. New touch interfaces on mobile devices contain features far beyond simple keyboard simulation. These touchscreens, cameras, and other movement detection systems can receive and analyze complex actions: not only “chorded” input from several fingers at once, but whole gestures like spreading two fingers apart or tilting one’s head to the side.
6. Synchronized media has evolved and is now delivered digitally over multiple pathways (broadcast, Internet, DVD, etc.). Users can interact with these media, requiring more complex user interfaces. This evolution means that issues beyond broadcast or transport must be addressed to ensure that full access to such content is available no matter what device or location it is accessed from.
7. Assistive technologies have in some cases moved in to the mainstream. For example speech input and output are becoming more common place on devices such as cell phones and automobiles. The concepts used for communicating via interactive text are now fully mainstreamed.
Technology and the market move more quickly and unpredictably than the current regulatory framework can easily accommodate. The Committee’s generalized approach to the user interface reduces this incompatibility, and the Access Board may want to consider how it can address the pace of rapid technological updates while maintaining regulatory reliability and consistency.
The Access Board directed the Committee to consider harmonization issues. Harmonization means the adoption of specific accessibility standards and guidelines across as many jurisdictions and standards bodies as feasible. Harmonization results in a more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit from clarity and simplicity. Recognizing the importance of international harmonization, representatives from the European Commission, Japan, Canada, and Australia participated in TEITAC. Industry supports harmonization in principle because it allows the ICT market to address accessibility through a global process -- one product developed to be sold world-wide -- rather than by trying to meet unique, potentially conflicting standards required by different countries. Harmonization should result in more accessible products, delivered through a more economically efficient market. Consumers thus benefit directly from harmonization; they also benefit indirectly because harmonization allows advocates to focus their efforts on fewer standards development activities. It is this economy of focused effort that may offer the greatest net benefit to people with disabilities.
In practical terms, harmonization often means the adoption of an international or national standard by a particular jurisdiction, or that the jurisdiction's policies are derived from that international standard. The Committee uses the term "jurisdictions" instead of "countries" because one of the issues in the United States is how to make sure we do not end up with 50 different state versions of the Section 508 standard. It has been mentioned that states either adopt Section 508 or do not, but some have made an effort to adapt it as they adopt it, i.e., revising some provisions and/or creating additional requirements. This has also occurred in some instances within the Federal government. Such adaptations may reduce economy of scale if there are conflicts or extension of standard provisions, making ICT more expensive for all.
Accessibility has attracted the attention of standards bodies in diverse fields. There are accessibility standards in buildings, ICT hardware, software, web development, consumer electronics, transportation, education, and other fields. These have arisen independently through different professions and in different countries.
In the course of the last decade these standards and guidelines have proliferated, along with a general awareness that some of the relevant provisions might be in conflict with each other. These standards and standards-setting committees include, among others:
In October 2004, the Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IED) established a Special Working Group on Accessibility (SWG-A) to create a comprehensive summary of user needs and inventory of existing accessibility standards. The goal of the SWG-A is to raise awareness of existing accessibility standards and to identify gaps where standards are not addressing user needs.
The TEITAC was fortunate to have several members who also participate in several of these other standards bodies.
The Committee worked to harmonize its recommendations with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) Working Group. The WCAG 2.0 Working Group also accepted changes from the Committee. This was facilitated by the fact that there were several common members between the two groups including a co-chair of the TEITAC subcommittee on Web and Software guidelines and a co-chair of the WCAG Working Group.
We recommend that the Access Board continue to monitor WCAG 2.0 as it proceeds to become a W3C recommendation by the end of 2008. Where there are provisions in the TEITAC proposal that are harmonized with WCAG 2.0, the Access Board should consider harmonization with the wording of the final WCAG 2.0 provisions.
We also made an effort to harmonize with ISO 9241 part 171 where appropriate. Some of the existing Section 508 software requirements do not have a direct counterpart in WCAG 2.0 but were harmonized with the ISO standard as appropriate.
Planning for Future Updates
Regulatory changes happen at a slow pace because the rulemaking process must take into account the perspectives of many stakeholders. This makes it is difficult for regulatory change to match the pace of technological change. The Committee’s consultative process alone has taken almost two years, and the subsequent rulemaking may take as long. By the time the new rules are in effect, some may already be in need of updating. The Committee discussed, but no consensus was reached on a method of minimizing this time lag. The proposal of separating the more permanent elements (such as Subpart A and the Functional Performance Criteria) from the technical requirements, which are more subject to market and technological changes is described below, but there are concerns that shorter periods between provision changes would be hard to implement on products since development cycles can be longer. It was also noted that the change in cycles might be in conflict with Administrative Procedures Act requirements for agency rulemaking.
The two types of provisions might have different review procedures. The former could continue on the current 5-8 year cycle. The latter might have “review triggers” such as:
It might be possible to review the affected provisions quickly and efficiently, using a narrowly focused mission, a smaller set of stakeholders and open public input processes. The Access Board might consider establishing such an approach and structure its near-term rulemaking to prepare for it.
Changes to these regulations will have both direct and indirect effects on the costs of implementation. The Access Board is responsible for developing an Economic Impact Statement for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the process for implementing new versions of the Section 255 guidelines and Section 508 standard. The Access Board requested that the Committee provide qualitative information that the Access Board could use in its Statement. This information is provided for only a small number of the recommended provisions.
In this section, however, we would like to discuss the issue of economic impact at a more abstract level, as a way of explaining how we came to the conclusions we drew about the economic effect of the refreshed Guidelines and Standard.
1. The Access Board made it clear that our economic impact analysis should refer only to changes from the current Section 508 provisions, not overall impact. That is, the Access Board’s Economic Impact Statement will only state whether changes in the provisions add to or subtract from the total cost of compliance.
2. As we understand it, the economic effect of a change to an individual provision will not be factored into OMB’s review; only the total aggregated effect is placed under scrutiny.
3. We attempted to craft recommended provisions that are more clear than the current ones based on the belief that clarity reduces costs because it simplifies testing and analysis but may inhibit innovation. In some instance we were able to do so and in others were not.
4. We believe that harmonization generally reduces costs by eliminating conflicts between different government and industry standards. The Committee placed harmonization high on its list of criteria for drafting provisions, and we believe that we have succeeded in eliminating inconsistencies with any of the other standards of which we are aware. Although such inconsistencies only affect ICT vendors directly, those costs must be recaptured somehow in the price, and agencies will bear the cost.
5. We are aware that some provisions do in fact expand the scope and level of effort, or will increase ICT costs in some other manner and the overall volume of provisions is significantly expanded which will increase the economic impact. In the case of VoIP, for example, the Committee’s recommendation assumes rough parity between VoIP and non-VoIP forms of voice conversation. In doing so, the provision simply follows the lead of the FCC’s regulatory action. In other cases, the recommended provision clarifies current Section 508 provisions. Even when a gap was unintended, agencies may have avoided certain costs through a mistaken interpretation. The correction of that mistake should not be interpreted as a newly imposed obligation.
6. Some of the provisions also take advantage of new technical developments and have been reformulated to give companies new options for meeting the provisions.
5
Implementation Recommendations
5.1 Serving Multiple Audiences
5.2 Testability
5.3 Assistive Technology and Sections 255 and 508
5.4 Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities
5.5 Usability of the Standard and Guidelines
5.6 Recommendations for Research
5.1 Serving Multiple Audiences
The Sections 255 and 508 materials have many audiences, with different needs:
The provisions and related information should serve both those with a deep knowledge of ICT accessibility, and those new to it.
The Committee worked with a goal to make clear and testable provisions. This has resulted in there being more provisions and more details in the individual provisions.
The Committee is also aware of the tools made available by the General Services Agency (GSA) such as the BuyAccessible wizard (and corresponding Buy Accessible Product and Services Directory), which can help agency procurement officers determine what requirements to include in a request for proposals (RFP) or other contract. Tools such as these have proved valuable when working with other accessibility standards, such as WCAG 2.0 and its Quick Reference tool.9
The Committee is required to deliver its recommendations in a report consisting of a complete set of provisions in a document suitable for publication in the Federal Register. However, we also discussed several alternatives to a report that could take the provisions out of a “flat” document form, and put them into an electronic tool that could be manipulated to deliver the kinds of information that different audiences require, in the most suitable format. This work is beyond the scope of the Committee, but we hope and expect tools to be developed that will help all audiences make effective use of the provisions to procure, develop or deploy products and services that meet the new regulations. One value of tools such as these is that they help people identify the provisions that are relevant to their current work, focus on their accessibility tasks and improve their management. To help with this future work, the report includes some limited (non-normative) additional information for the provisions:
It should be noted that the thorough process of discussion, iterative modification, and final consensus used by the committee on the wording of each provision was not utilized in the formulation of the metadata. The metadata was by and large submitted by individuals and, although subject to review and comment by committee members, was not discussed in committee or brought forward for consensus.
One criticism of the current Section 255 Guidelines and Section 508 Standard (and other accessibility standards efforts) is that the provisions are too broad or vague resulting in conflicting interpretations, and therefore not practical to test. We heard repeatedly that some manufacturers can not easily determine whether their product meets the requirements and that it is difficult for purchasers to compare the claims of similar products. The Committee was also informed that for certain types of products, the cost of the proposed test procedures could exceed the product's development costs. This is because reliable multi-scenario tests are labor-intensive and not easily automated.
We are persuaded by these claims, but also recognize the necessity of keeping the provision general enough to allow alternative solutions to the underlying functional problem. As we considered each provision, we tried to find a balance between generality and precision that is:
The Committee did not create any specific test methods for the provisions in the recommendations. While there was discussion on what type of test might be needed for each provision, no consensus was reached. Including this section in the report was also a concern as this is not a formal recommendation for test methods, but a statement of how a test might be developed.
We used the terminology of “inspection,” “measure (formal test),” and “expert review,” and included a reference to one of them in the information that accompanies each provision.11
5.3 Assistive Technology and Sections 255 and 508
Is AT ICT?
AT Interoperability and Testing Requirements
Reporting AT Compatibility Testing Results
Sections 255 and 508 cover the requirements for “mainstream” ICT products to be used by people with disabilities. Assistive technology (AT) is often an essential part of accessibility for products that support AT. 12 In many cases, it provides accessibility where the IT product can not do so on its own, and it enhances ease of use and productivity for its users with disabilities. AT products most often work in concert with a mainstream product to deliver to the user the necessary interface features and flexibility. The two products must interoperate to a high degree. In these cases it is important to identify the requirements placed upon the ICT and AT products for compatibility. The Committee also recognizes that for products with closed functionality, where attaching AT is not possible, the accessibility should be provided by the product itself.
The two laws treat the role of AT differently. Section 255 requires accessibility in the mainstream telecommunications product, if readily achievable. If it is not readily achievable, then Section 255 requires compatibility with AT, again if readily achievable. In contrast, there is no preference for mainstream ICT product accessibility in Section 508. Accessibility through AT is equally acceptable.
The Committee was fortunate to have members with long experience in developing and using AT, as well as designing for compatibility with AT. Below are some of the topics the Committee dealt with; some of these are reflected in the Recommendations.
Is AT ICT?
Members of the Committee expressed concern about the status of assistive technology products: are they subject to the Section 255 and 508 regulations themselves? In some cases this concern was expressed regarding the need to share some of the compatibility burden equitably. Although we did not completely resolve this issue, on one point we did agree: whenever an AT product is acting on its own, it could be classified as an ICT product for the purposes of these regulations. For example, a direct-connect TTY, that is a TTY that can be plugged into a regular phone line is not interoperating with any other device and is considered ICT. If you are originating, routing, or terminating a call from the TTY, then it is defined as customer premises equipment (CPE) within Section 255.
AT Interoperability and Testing Requirements
An application programming interface (API) is a method that establishes interoperability between programs, or between a program and an operating system, and is usually standardized and documented so that new development can proceed without extensive consultations. Essentially it is a published protocol that lays out how two or more pieces of software shall interact with each other. It is commonly defined by a software platform and utilized by a software application. An accessibility API establishes mechanisms by which ICT and AT products can more easily communicate and interoperate. Accessibility APIs exist and are used, but none are currently mandated. In addition, some IT and AT vendors have collaborated to achieve interoperability through other methods.
The Committee considered the possibility of recommending an API requirement. A mandated accessibility API, if there were one that would work across all platforms could resolve the assignment of compatibility responsibilities between the AT software and IT software. Rather than mandating any specific accessibility APIs, which need to be specific to particular existing ICT products, the Committee proposed to describe the minimum set of information that IT products must provide to AT either through accessibility services or another method for cooperating with AT. Further, the Committee proposed to recommend that ICT platforms should define such a set of accessibility services, so that software applications running on that platform can utilize those defined services rather than needing to invent a new set. The Committee could not reach consensus on this issue. As a result, the provision regarding AT Interoperability is included in Section 7 “Provisions Considered but Not Completed.” For the most part the committee did agree on the text of this provision. The concern lay in whether providing these capabilities alone (i.e., exposing this information alone) was sufficient to pass Section 508 or whether there had to be AT that government employees (and the public) could get that was known to work with the product. It should be noted that this provision is harmonized with the ISO 9241 part 171 provisions enabling compatibility with assistive technology.
The Committee discussed the use and sufficiency of accessibility APIs. Should there be mandatory accessibility APIs? Would an ICT vendor fully meet its responsibilities by building products to those APIs? What if there were no AT product to perform the functionality on “the other side” of the API? Must ICT products be tested with actual AT products? If an API were fully comprehensive, it might be safe to assume that testing to the API is sufficient. However, some members felt that this may not be possible in many situations, given the complexity of, for example, a software program and a screen reader interface. Just pairing all the possible settings of both products might involve a large number of tests. Both products may be going through revision cycles that are not synchronized, adding further testing complexity.
If an API is not comprehensive, and if actual AT product compatibility testing is required, what should be the extent of the testing? How many versions of how many AT products should be tested against, and how thorough should those tests be? The committee struggled with all of these questions but could not reach a consensus.
Reporting AT Compatibility Testing Results
The question about creating a requirement to report accessibility testing results was discussed with no agreement reached. There was concern regarding legal risks, indemnification clauses, and testing tool license agreements as the reasons publishing test results should be rejected. There was also concern that this information could be important to the procuring agency.
During the course of a pre-procurement negotiation an ICT vendor could be required by an agency to release its compatibility test results, including gaps and workarounds it had discovered or developed. This was a topic that the Committee could not reach consensus on.
5.4 Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities
The Committee considered recommendations for provisions to support accessibility for people with cognitive, language and learning disabilities. The Committee received presentations from two experts in the field, Dr. Clayton Lewis and Nancy Ward, and learned about the wide range of disabilities covered under this category. They include intellectual and developmental disabilities, dementia (deterioration of cognitive functioning), impairments of memory, aphasia, and a range of specific learning disabilities. Both presenters shared examples of products and features that help serve the needs of people with cognitive disabilities.
Many of the provisions support people with cognitive disabilities as well as improve access for people with other types of disability. Some examples are the provisions on error identification (3-AA), not changing context on input (3-Z) and on focus (3-Y). The information ICT must provide to AT also supports the use of AT to provide for several of the broad needs of people with cognitive disabilities that were identified by Dr. Lewis.
Other suggested provisions included in the advisory notes for developers are being passed on to the Access Board.
5.5 Usability of the Standard and Guidelines
Writing Style of the Provisions
Making the Complex Clear
Improving the Usability of the Requirements
The difficulty of understanding the current regulations was one of the recurring subjects of presentations and comments submitted throughout our work. We heard that it is difficult for people from both government and industry to understand the scope, detailed technical interpretation, and applicability of the regulations.
There were many challenges in the process of working towards bringing a high degree of usability to the standards. Our goal was to make them effective at specifying product requirements for accessibility, and useful in both the product development and procurement process. We had to consider:
Writing Style of the Provisions
One answer to the challenge of writing style can be found in the approach to clear communication called “plain language.” Guidance from the National Archives’ information on drafting regulations, for example, says that “Readable regulations help the public find requirements quickly and understand them easily. They increase compliance, strengthen enforcement, and decrease mistakes, frustration, phone calls, appeals, and distrust of government. Everyone gains.”13
Dr. Janice (Ginny) Redish presented to the Committee on “Why Plain Language is Critical for Standards.”14 Dr. Redish pointed out that “Standards are not just statements of facts; they are communications to people. If the purpose of a standard is to get people to behave in a certain way, the standard must communicate successfully to those people. If they do not understand what they are to do (and not to do), how will they follow the standard?” She pointed out that plain language is not at odds with writing a legal document, it supports the legal accuracy and sufficiency of a standard or regulation. She defined plain language as knowing your audiences and creating the document that works for those audiences – creating the document in which they can: find what they need; understand what they find, and act appropriately on that understanding in the time and effort that they are willing to spend on it.
Dr. Redish offered guidelines that are similar to those found on the Federal Register web site and on other advocacy sites such as the Center for Plain Language and plainlanguage.gov, with examples from regulatory writing.15 For example, use clear heading, keep sentences and paragraphs short, set the context first so there is a logical order to the sentence and use numbered lists where appropriate. In drafting the language of the recommended provisions, we have tried to follow these guidelines, and have worked to make the provisions and definitions as clear and easy to understand as possible. We have also followed guidance from the Federal Register to use the common word “must” in place of the more legalistic (and less well understood) “shall.”
We rejected two recommendations from both Dr. Redish and the Federal Register guidance:
Making the Complex Clear
At the same time that the Committee has tried to put these recommendations in plain language using a clear communication style, we have had the further challenge of trying to break down complex technical requirements into understandable requirements with simple explanations. The Committee has used the following measures to achieve this result:
Improving the Usability of the Requirements
Section 508 Coordinators and Access Board and FCC staff responsible for technical assistance have gathered useful experience in communicating about the Sections 255 and 508 requirements. We urge the Access Board to continue to work to make the provisions as clear, unambiguous and understandable as possible while at the same time continuing to allow room for innovation. This ensures that people in government agencies, industry, advocacy groups, and the general public will be able to use the updated regulations to improve the accessibility of ICT products.
The Access Board should provide tools or other educational material to help anyone using the regulation determine accurately (and efficiently) which provisions apply to any specific product or procurement request.
5.6 Recommendations for Research
Captions
Speech and Audio Volume and Quality
Cognitive Disability
Biometrics
Audio Menus
Low Vision: Relationship Between Clinical Metrics and Product Performance
Photosensitive Seizure Disorders
Compatibility Between Prosthetics and Touch Sensitive Input Technologies
Gesture-based Input Technologies
In the course of reviewing the existing regulations the Committee considered how those regulations have been implemented, including the many requests for information and clarification brought to the Access Board, GSA, the FCC, and others by federal agencies, federal employees, and vendors. It has not always been clear how to meet the regulations, given the diversity of ICT and the need for the regulations to be as general as possible. Also, the Committee was aware of the many changes in the ICT marketplace since the regulations were first finalized. Many of these changes involve the evolution of products and services beyond the categories embedded in the regulations due to technological changes, market forces, or both. For example, websites have become software applications, virtual operating systems downloaded one feature at a time, and the use of Internet and wireless technologies for voice, video, and text communication. We are seeing the first generation of gesture-based interfaces that call into question many assumptions about touchscreen technologies. The concern is how can a vendor or procurement officer or average consumer navigate through this rapidly evolving ecosystem?
In the hope of clarifying and possibly future-proofing the new regulations, the Committee addressed the specific issues identified by agencies, vendors, and consumers. Some of these questions simply can not be answered yet, and require a certain amount of research.
As part of its work, the Committee was asked by the Access Board to identify specific areas that would benefit from additional research. We believe that the research needs we have identified are feasible. None require the development of new technologies or groundbreaking scientific work. In some cases they involve “knowledge translation” from clinical language into a form suitable for technology standards. In other cases what is needed is a clear review of the existing literature with an eye towards the development of technological standards, especially in light of the desire for international harmonization.
We have phrased the research requests as questions, with some introductory material as needed.
Captions
What are the effects upon legibility and actual user performance of various caption features: font, font size, style, and text display rate for the different transmission methods (TV, PC, wireless) and display sizes?
Speech and Audio Volume and Quality
Although these topics first arose with respect to voice telephones, they apply to all ICT that uses voice or other audio information features. The current Sections 255 and 508 regulations only refer to amplification.
What levels of amplification provide what level of functional benefit to what kinds and numbers of users with hearing loss?
Raw amplification is not always an effective solution, especially if the audio being amplified is noisy or unclear. Is there a definition of “clarity” or intelligibility such that a measurable regulatory standard is feasible and appropriate?
Cognitive Disability
The TEITAC process was the first time that cognitive disabilities were actively factored into the development of technological standards for accessibility in the United States. We understand that cognitive disabilities are diverse and complex, so the needs of these users may be difficult to translate into clear technical requirements. For this reason, many of our suggestions were advisory notes rather than technical provisions. We also know that all ICT users occasionally experience cognitive limits such as remembering passwords and understanding product documentation. Is it currently possible to develop technology standards for mainstream products and services that would benefit real users with cognitive disabilities? If so, where are the specific areas that would provide the greatest benefit? How can any AT and ICT work together for users with cognitive disabilities?
Biometrics
Biometrics used for security or authorization purposes can exclude individuals who lack certain physiological features or who can not remain stationary long enough to be successfully registered. Are there biometrics that are inherently inclusive? Are there any two or more already commercially available biometrics that, if either option could be used, would be totally inclusive?
Audio Menus
There are anecdotal references that suggest that audio menus should be limited to 4 or 6 maximum items. What does the body of research say regarding audio menus for non-disabled users? Is there any relevant research regarding people with either hearing or cognitive limitations?
Low Vision: Relationship Between Clinical Metrics and Product Performance
The existing Section 255 and 508 regulations refer to "20/70 vision." It's not clear enough how this metric can be translated into a technical specification for the performance of a product, such as character size. While a provision has been recommended to deal with this, it is a topic in need of more research.
Photosensitive Seizure Disorders
The current Guidelines and Standard have provisions that disallow products that flash in such a way as to cause photosensitive seizures, but we are not sure that these provisions fully address certain research findings regarding flash frequency, size of the flashing object, and color of flash. Our recommendations add significant detail to the design requirements, but a comprehensive report of existing research (e.g., a survey article or equivalent) may be able to provide all the guidance needed; if such a report is not sufficient, new research may be required.
Compatibility Between Prosthetics and Touch Sensitive Input Technologies
Prostheses (especially their surface materials) and touch sensitive input technologies are both evolving. How are these changes affecting the accessibility of touchscreens by people who use prostheses? Can requirements for prosthetic surfaces improve touchscreen accessibility, with or without complementary touchscreen requirements?
Gesture-based Input Technologies
There are several kinds of input devices that use gesture, and these are rapidly finding their way into popular ICT products. The techniques include touchscreens (both single touch and multitouch), accelerometers, and cameras to detect a complex physical motion such as flicking across a surface or giving the "thumbs up" sign. What are their positive and negative accessibility implications? Are accessibility standards feasible for these input systems?
How to read these recommendations
General Introduction
Subpart A
Subpart B: Functional Performance Criteria
Subpart C: Technical Requirements
Subpart D
Advisory Notes
How to read these recommendations
Terminology Used in the Provisions
Notes Included with the Provisions
Additional Information Included with the Provisions
General Exceptions
These recommendations include:
In the text of the provisions, defined terms are marked with a special style (“DEF”) and a distinct visual appearance, for example:
a NON-TEXT OBJECT is SYNCHRONIZED MEDIA, live audio-only or live video-only CONTENT, then text alternatives must at least provide a descriptive LABEL
Terminology Used in the Provisions
Following the guidance on writing regulations on the Federal Register web site, we have used “must” to indicate the normative requirements.
Some provisions list more than one approach that will meet the requirement. The use of "or" means that the listed options are equally acceptable as a way to meet the requirement of the provision. For example:
Notes Included with the Provisions
There are three kinds of notes included with the provision text.
Additional Information Included with the Provisions
Each provision includes a list of additional information. This text is not normative, but is included for informational purposes.
General Exceptions
Note that General Exceptions in Subpart A take precedence over both the technical requirements in Subpart C and the functional performance criteria in Subpart B.
This language was accepted from the 508/255 Task Force to be used as a blanket rationale for the provisions regarding Section 255. It is placed in a general introduction because it affects provisions in Parts B, C and D. The language here, and elsewhere in the provisions are taken from the approved Task Force report "TF report 1. 9. 08.doc."
In establishing the rules implementing Section 255, the FCC has defined the types of products and services that must comply with the rules. The FCC has determined that the Section 255 rules also apply to information and documentation associated with the covered products, as well as information and documentation necessary to use the covered products. This information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support and communications. Technical standards that would improve the accessibility of any of the items covered by Section 255, whether a phone, a printed user guide, or a web-based billing function, would be candidates for inclusion in the Access Board’s Section 255 guidelines. Unless otherwise noted, the technical standards apply to Section 255, because they are necessary to make the covered products accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, consistent with Section 255.
1. Purpose
2. Application
3. General Exceptions
4. Equivalent Facilitation
5. Definitions
1. Purpose
There are two versions of the application section, one for Section 255, and one for Section 508. The Purpose did not reach consensus. This draft language is provided for information on the deliberations of the Committee
The purpose of this part is to implement Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 255.
Purpose for Section 255
Pursuant to Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, this part provides requirements for accessibility, usability, and compatibility of new TELECOMMUNICATIONS and INTERCONNECTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL (VOIP) PRODUCTS and CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT (CPE) used to provide TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES or INTERCONNECTED VOIP SERVICE, as well as existing products and CPE that undergo substantial change or upgrade, or for which new releases are distributed. This part does not apply to minor or insubstantial changes to existing products and CPE that do not affect functionality
Purpose for Section 508
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data including communication that are as timely, accurate, complete, and efficient as compared 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 including communication that are as timely, accurate, complete, and efficient as compared to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an UNDUE BURDEN would be imposed on the agency.
Rationale
Federal procurement officials and other subcommittee members requested the addition of information to help guide them in determining when access to data and information for individuals with disabilities was "comparable" to that available for individuals without disabilities. The subcommittee relied on information from Office of Civil Rights decisions regarding comparable access to identify the critical concepts of "timely, accurate, complete and efficient." The explanatory note was developed to assist in assuring understanding and consistency in application. The subcommittee added the word "communication" to "information and data" to clarify that communication is part of information and data. While this information has been infused into the Purpose section, it could alternatively be added as a new section under Application.
Advisory Notes to the Access Board
This explanatory material is recommended for both the Sections 255 and 508 purposes.
Timely access means that individuals with disabilities have information and data available to them at the same time as individuals without disabilities, but that does not preclude captions that are slightly delayed or other reasonable differences in timing given individual situations.
Accurate means that the information and data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another form or media.
Complete means that all critical information and data is present when accessed by assistive technology or converted into another form or media.
Efficient means that an individual with a disability exerts a reasonably similar or comparable amount of effort (given the capacity of current assistive technology) in using electronic and information technology as compared to an individual without a disability.
Access may be delivered via built-in access features or compatibility with assistive technology as described in the technical requirements specified in Subpart C.
The determination of timely, accurate, complete, and efficient will not be a quantifiable measure.
2. Application
There are two versions of the application section, one for Section 255, and one for Section 508
Application for Section 255
Where READILY ACHIEVABLE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS and INTERCONNECTED VOIP equipment and CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT must comply with the requirements of Part C-Technical Requirements of this [rule].
Where it is not READILY ACHIEVABLE to comply with Part C-Technical Requirements, TELECOMMUNICATIONS and interconnected VoIP equipment and CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT (CPE) must comply with the requirements of Part B-Functional Performance Criteria, if READILY ACHIEVABLE.
Product design, development and evaluation (for equipment and CPE covered under Section 255)
(a) MANUFACTURERS must evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of equipment and CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT used to provide TELECOMMUNICATIONS and INTERCONNECTED VOIP SERVICES and must incorporate such evaluation throughout product design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently as possible. MANUFACTURERS must identify barriers to accessibility and usability as part of such a product design and development process.
(b) In development such a process, MANUFACTURERS must consider the following factors, as the MANUFACTURER deems appropriate:
(1) Where market research is undertaken, including individuals with disabilities in target populations of such research;
(2) Where product design, testing, pilot demonstrations, and product trials are conducted, including individuals with disabilities in such activities;
(3) Working cooperatively with appropriate disability-related organizations; and
(4) Making reasonable efforts to validate any unproven access solutions through testing with individuals with disabilities or with appropriate disability-related organizations that have established expertise with individuals with disabilities.
Prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability and compatibility
(a) For purposes of Section 255, no change must be undertaken that decreases or has the effect of decreasing the net accessibility, usability, or compatibility of TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, INTERCONNECTED VOIP EQUIPMENT, or CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT used with TELECOMMUNICATIONS or INTERCONNECTED VOIP SERVICES.
(b) Exception: Discontinuation of a product must not be prohibited.
Text from: {255} §1193.21 (first paragraph) and {255} §1193.23 (second section).
Application for Section 508
In general, this section applies only to the consideration of accessibility in the process of developing, procuring, maintaining, or using ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. (see note #1).
(a) Products covered by this part shall comply with all applicable provisions of this part. When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, each AGENCY shall ensure that the products comply with the applicable provisions of this part, unless an UNDUE BURDEN would be imposed on the AGENCY.
(1) When compliance with the provisions of this part imposes an UNDUE BURDEN, AGENCIES shall provide individuals with disabilities with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.
(2) When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using a product, if an AGENCY determines that compliance with any provision of this part imposes an UNDUE BURDEN, the documentation by the AGENCY supporting the development, procurement, maintenance, or use must explain why, and to what extent, compliance with each such provision creates an UNDUE BURDEN. (see note #2)
(3) When determining whether application of the standards would result in an UNDUE BURDEN, an AGENCY must consider all AGENCY resources available to the program or component for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(4) Technical infeasibility, if substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in determining whether application of the standards [provisions] would constitute an UNDUE BURDEN. (see note #3)
(b) When procuring a product, each AGENCY shall procure products that comply with the provisions in this part when such products are available in the commercial marketplace or when such products are developed in response to a Government solicitation. AGENCIES cannot claim a product as a whole is not commercially available because no product in the marketplace meets all the standards.
If products that meet all of the standards are not commercially available the agency must procure the product that best meets the applicable access standards, given the agency's business needs. (see note #4)
(c) Except as provided by §1194.3(b), this part applies to ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY developed, procured, maintained, or used by agencies directly or used by a contractor under a contract with an agency that requires the use of such product, or requires the use, to a significant extent, of such product in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.
Source: {508}1194.2
Rationale
1. This additional introductory language is intended to clarify that all of the regulations in this section that impact agency procurement procedures, apply only to the consideration of accessibility. The additional language is not intended to provide regulatory direction regarding how agencies consider other factors, such as business and technical needs and requirements, when making an acquisition. The FAR defines procurement parameters for a number of agencies and agencies need to determine how to address accessibility within the parameters of other required procurement considerations and processes. The workgroup has discussed the fact that there have been varying interpretations of how Section 508 should be applied when making an acquisition. Agencies are required to consider accessibility within the framework of other regulated procurement practices such as the FAR. Consensus was not reached on this item and the alternative position is to not add this introductory language.
2. The undue burden clause in prior regulations only applied to procurement. It is assumed the application of undue burden should apply to all areas covered by Section 508 including development, maintenance, and use of E&IT in addition to procurement.
3. Subsection (a)(3) was added to infuse information from the definition of undue burden into the application section and subsection (a)(4) was added to clarify how technical infeasibility is considered as part of undue burden.
4. The last sentence of subsection (b) (in italics) has been reworded to clarify the use of “best meets” when products are not commercially available that comprehensively meet each and every standard, but might partially meet one or more individual standards or meet some but not all of the standards. The rewording is intended to improve understanding of the sentence. A reference to business need has also been added in an attempt to clarify the interaction between degree to which a product conforms to the access standards and overall agency needs. The wording “given business needs” was an attempt to parallel the direction from the Access Board that best meets means “best meets the agency’s needs in light of the accessibility requirements of Section 508.”
Consensus was not reached on this item and an alternative position is to delete the last sentence completely, leaving subsection (b) with the first two sentences. Deleting the last sentence would defer all procurement decision-making procedures to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and/or other governing procurement policies. The Access Board and FAR will be simultaneously considering the Section 508 regulations. As a result, GSA and the Access Board could consider how to best provide guidance for agencies to implement Section 508 within the procurement process through the FAR rather than the Section 508 regulations.
A third alternative would be to keep the current regulatory language without change.
Advisory Note to the Access Board
The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop supplemental materials to assist in determining what is and is not E&IT.
A - Intelligence Or Security Systems
This part does not apply to any ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY operated by AGENCIES, the function, operation, or use of which involves intelligence activities, cryptologic activities related to national security, command and control of military forces, equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system, or systems that are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions. Systems that are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions do not include a system that is to be used for routine administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management applications).
Source: {508}1194.3(a), no change
B- Incidental To A Contract
This part does not apply to ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract.
Source: {508}1194.3(b), no change
C - Employees Not Individuals With Disabilities
Except as required to comply with the provisions in this part, this part does not require the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of an ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY device at a workstation of a Federal employee who is not an individual with a disability.
Source: {508}1194.3(c), no change
D - Access By Public
When agencies provide access to the public to information or data through ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, AGENCIES are not required to make products owned by the agency available for access and use by individuals with disabilities at a location other than that where the ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is provided to the public, or to purchase products for access and use by individuals with disabilities at a location other than that where the ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is provided to the public.
Source: {508}1194.3(d), no change
E - Fundamental Alteration
This part shall not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the product or its components.
1. A fundamental alteration occurs when the accessibility feature or functionality would substantially reduce the overall functionality of the product, materially render some features inoperable by those not using the access feature, or substantially impede or deter use of the product by those not using the access feature.
2. With respect to ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY that is E&IT, a fundamental alteration occurs when compliance with one or more of the technical standards or functional performance criteria would substantially reduce the overall functionality of the ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY for its primary targeted disability population, materially render some features inoperable by the target population, or substantially impede or deter use of the product by the target population.
3. For E&IT subject to Section 255, in order to claim fundamental alteration, a MANUFACTURER must document that compliance with one or more of the technical standards or functional performance criteria would substantially or materially interfere with the purpose and function for which the product is being developed.Source: {508}1194.3(e)
F - Maintenance and Monitoring Aspects of Products
Those portions of products whose design limits physical access, and that are only accessed for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring are not required to comply with this part. This part does apply to the controls or interfaces of such products where the controls or interfaces could be executed externally or remotely.
Rationale
Additional wording attempts to restrict this exception to products that are specifically designed to be located in areas frequented only by service personnel rather than covering all products by virtue of their location. It also makes clear that being able to support the system remotely is acceptable.
Source: {508}1194.3(f)
4. Equivalent Facilitation
Nothing in this part is intended to prevent the use of designs or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed in this part provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of a product for people with disabilities.
Source: {508}1194.5, no change
Subpart A: Definitions
Accessible Content Format: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Agency: Any Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service.
Application Software: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Assistive Technology (AT): Assistive technology is any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. As used in this part, the term includes traditional assistive technology hardware and software along with mainstream technology used for assistive purposes, virtual assistive technology delivered as a web service and integration of products into a system that provides assistive technology functions that allow individuals with disabilities to access ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
Rationale
Added language clarifying that assistive technology includes web based and integration services, and including any general or mainstream technology which is used for assistive purposes.
Advisory Note to the Access Board
Following agreement on the basic definition, there was an uncompleted request to add "service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access," for Section 255. The statutory language from Section 255 is:
(d) Compatibility: Whenever the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of this section are not readily achievable, such a manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.
Authoring Tools: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Blinking: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
CAPTCHA: Initialism for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart."
Note 1: CAPTCHA tests often involve asking the user to type in text that is presented in an obscured image or audio file.
Note 2: A Turing test is any system of tests designed to differentiate a human from a computer. It is named after famed computer scientist Alan Turing. The term was coined by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.
Captions: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Caption Text: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Closed Product Functionality: Functionality of a product where ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY can not be used to achieve some or all of the functionality of the electronic user interface components for any reason including hardware, software, platform, license, or policy limitation.
Content: Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of software, including but not limited to: TEXT, images, sounds, videos, controls, and animations, as well as the encoding that defines the structure, presentation, and interactions associated with those elements.
Examples: Word processing files, presentation files, spreadsheet files, text files, portable document files, web based, etc.
Content Format: An encoding mechanism for storing information.
Examples: HTML, JPEG, SMIL, PDF, etc.
Contrast Ratio: The RELATIVE LUMINANCE of the lighter of the foreground or background colors compared to the RELATIVE LUMINANCE of the darker of the foreground or background colors.
(L1 + 0.05) / (L2 + 0.05), where
Note 1: Contrast ratios can range from 1 to 21 (commonly written 1:1 to 21:1).
Note 2: For dithered colors, use the average values of the colors that are dithered (average R, average G, and average B).
Note 3: Text can be evaluated with anti-aliasing turned off.
Note 4: Background color is the specified color of content over which the text is to be rendered in normal usage. If no background color is specified, then white is assumed.
Note 5: For text displayed over gradients and background images, authors should ensure that sufficient contrast exists for each part of each character in the content.
Customer Premises Equipment: Equipment employed on the premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate TELECOMMUNICATIONS or INTERCONNECTED VOIP SERVICE.
Source: Telecommunications Act of 1996; FCC Order No. 07-110
Decoration: Sensory experience to be communicated to the user that does not convey relevant information, does not have a function, and is included only for aesthetic purposes.
Electronic and Information Technology (E&IT): Includes INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. The term electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited to, TELECOMMUNICATIONS products (such as telephones), information kiosks and transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as copiers and fax machines. The term does not include any equipment that contains embedded INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY that is used as an integral part of the product, but in which INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is not the principal function of that product.
Explanatory Note
This definition is derived from Clinger-Cohen and cannot be changed. However, this is still an issue for agencies, and the Committee might want to recommend that Access Board and GSA work together to create advisory notes to help them determine what is (and is not) E&IT.
Enhanced Audio: (This definition was marked for removal See Section 7.)
Flash: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Free-standing: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
General Flash and Red Flash Thresholds for Hardware: The Committee agreed to send this draft language for the definition that accompanies 2.1-B: Flashing to the Access Board as a basis for further work on exact numbers in the definition and further work. (See text marked in italics.)
A hardware FLASH is below the threshold (i.e., software or CONTENT passes) if any of the following is true:
1. There are no more than three General Flashes and / or no more than three Red Flashes within any one-second period; or
2. The FLASH frequency is 50 or 60 Hz and is due to a refresh that is intrinsically tied to the local line frequency; or
3. The FLASH frequency is 75 hz or greater; or
4. General FLASHES (that have less than a 590 nm wavelength) are no more than 20 cd/m2 AND red flashes (that have a 590 nm wavelength or longer) are no more than 2.5 cd/m2; or
5. General FLASHES are no more than (1200/N^0.3)(0.006/AREA – 1) cd/m2 AND red flashes (that have a 590 nm wavelength or longer) are no more than (150/^0.3)(0.006/AREA – 1) cd/m2; or
6. There is an adaptive brightness feature that always keeps the changes in luminance of FLASHES from all sources (that might FLASH > 3 hz) below the maximum of (1, ambient(in lux)/700 lux) times the threshold values in 4 or 5 above.
Note 1: Most products can safely use a minimum typical / expected viewing distance of 12 inches where 0.006 steradians would be a circle of 1.05 inch diameter.
Note 2: Red sources with wavelengths of 590 or more nm are especially provocative since, due to the way the eye and brain process light with longer wavelengths.
Note 3: Each of the following examples would meet option 5 (when viewed from at least 12 inches) even when all of the sources are flashing together at more than 3 Hz:
- 1 round LED with a diameter of 5 mm or less, and no more than 32,000 cd/m2.
- 1 rectangular indicator with a size of 10 by 20 mm or less, and no more than 2,100 cd/m2.
- 3 square indicators (within a 2.1 inch circle) each 6 mm square or less, and no more than 3,500 cd/m2.
- 4 round indicators (within a 2.1 inch circle) each 8 mm in diameter or less, and no more than 1,400 cd/m2.
- 5 rectangular indicators (within a 2.1 inch circle) each 6 by 2 mm, and no more than 6,100 cd/m2.
(For light sources that are Red flashes (that have a 590 nm wavelength or longer) the values for luminance in this note should be divided by 8.)
(For comparison, the maximum brightness of a white screen on an LCD computer monitor is about 200 to 400 cd/m2.)
Rationale
The hardware flash values are based on the CIE Small Angle Disability Glare Equation in Johannes J Vos "On the cause of disability glare and its dependence on glare angle and ocular pigmentation" in Clinical and Experimental Optometry 86.6, November 2003 and "Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage” (CIE.) CIE equations for disability Glare. CIE report #146. Vienna: CIE 2002. This equation also includes an age factor. 62.5 was used as the age in generating the constants in equation in #5 above.
Advisory Note to the Access Board
The working group came up with the definitions for “general flash and red flash thresholds for hardware” after much effort but there was not sufficient time to explore them as much as necessary to come to consensus on them. The “general flash and red flash thresholds for hardware” therefore does not have consensus. What the group did agree on was:
1. Very bright point sources or very bright small sources can be a problem (per Graham Harding.)
2. Very bright point sources or very bright small sources should be allowed if they flash less than 3 per second.
3. Flashing above 3 per second should be allowed if is as equivalently safe as with the Software flash thresholds.
4. Some metrics for identifying ‘equivalently safe’ were created but more time is needed by everyone to study them and their derivation before they are used by anyone including the Access Board.
5. The numbers were included in this report in order to facilitate review by different parties.
General Flash and Red Flash Thresholds for Content and User Interfaces: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Information Technology: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Interactive Elements: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Product: A product that is used to provide INTERCONNECTED VOIP SERVICE
Source: FCC regulations 47 C.F.R. §9.3
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service: A service that:
1. Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
2. Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
3. Requires Internet protocol-compatible CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT; and
4. Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.
Source: FCC regulations 47 C.F.R. §9.3
Keyboard: A set of systematically arranged keys by which a machine or device is operated and alphanumeric input is provided such as a computer keyboard, a cell-phone keypad, or a television remote control that can generate alphanumeric input. Tactilely discernable keys that are used in conjunction with the main cluster of keys are included in the definition of keyboard as long as their function also maps to keys on any KEYBOARD INTERFACES.
Keyboard Interface: A means for accepting input from a KEYBOARD. For software, this would be the ability to accept KEYBOARD input from the operating system including on-screen KEYBOARDS. For hardware this would be the ability to connect a KEYBOARD via wired or wireless connection.
Label: TEXT or other component with a text alternative that is presented to a user to identify a component within CONTENT.
Note: A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same.
Source: WCAG 2.0
Large Scale Text: At least 18 point or 14 point bold
Note 1: Fonts with extraordinarily thin strokes or unusual features and characteristics that reduce the familiarity of their letter forms are harder to read, especially at lower contrast levels.
Note 2: Font size is the size when the content is delivered. It does not include resizing that may be done by a user.
Manufacturer: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Menu: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Non-text Object: Any object that is not a sequence of characters that is PROGRAMMATICALLY DETERMINABLE or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language.
Note: This includes, but is not limited to, ASCII Art (a pattern of characters), emoticons, leetspeak (character substitution), and images representing text.
Other Services To Cooperate With Assistive Technologies: A method, other than the PLATFORM ACCESSIBILITY SERVICES, used to interoperate with ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES.
Platform Accessibility Services: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Platform Software: Collection of software components that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to applications that allows them to be isolated from the underlying software or hardware layer.
Note 1: For our purposes, it is those software components/services provided to applications for the creation or manipulation of user interfaces and user input - that impact accessibility - which are of concern for whether something is a platform or not. An application offering a compute service, such as a 3D rendering engine where a requesting application isn't using the software components/services to create a user interface and interact with the user, should not be considered a "platform."
Note 2: If applications typically connect directly to the underlying layer, rather than relying solely on the platform software components and services, then it is likely that the software components in the middle are not acting as a "platform." For example, a program that hosts plug-in's is not a platform if the plug-in can directly access the underlying layer.
Note 3: A particular software component may play the role of a platform in some situations and not in others. Platforms can include such things as Internet browsers, operating systems, plug-ins to internet browsers or other software applications, and under some situations, byte-code interpreted virtual environments, and other "programming within another programming" environments.
Programmatically Determinable: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Readily Achievable: Easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.
Source: Telecommunications §1193.3
Real-time Text: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Simple Tactile Form: (This definition was not completed. See Section 7 for draft text.)
Specialized Customer Premises Equipment: Equipment employed on the premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate TELECOMMUNICATIONS or VoIP services, which is commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access.
Source: Telecommunications §1193.3; FCC Order No. 07-110
Synchronized Media: Audio or video displayed at the same time as other time-based CONTENT that is required for understanding of the complete presentation. The other CONTENT that the audio or video is synchronized with to meet this definition does not include equivalents such as CAPTIONS, subtitles, or V