Question 1: The Board developed the draft using the organizational approach recommended by the Committee in which the provisions are organized primarily by the features or capabilities of a product, instead of discrete product types. The Board seeks comments on the usability and effectiveness of this approach, as well as alternative organizational approaches.

Regulatory Approach

Embedded advisories were found to be distracting, providing little value for developers.  Provisions are vague and should preferably clearly state alignment with WCAG wherever possible to assist developers. The Access Board would be wise to use a format similar to WCAG2.0 found at http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#guidelines  where links to the right of the page are used to provide support by specifying the advisory and   success criteria.    The WCAG has a full complement of support materials that instruct developers on how to achieve compliance, and by clearly aligning 508 provisions with WCAG, it allows developers to directly tap into those support materials.

Question 2: The Board seeks input on what implementation time frames would be reasonable, specifically whether some provisions should have differing implementation dates.

Regulatory Approach

Phased implementation using techniques that are well-known within the industry is preferable. Six-month duration is adequate.

Question 3: To improve usability, the Board titled each provision and located advisory notes next to the associated requirements. Are there any other format changes that will make the draft easier to use?

The draft is substantially reorganized from the current standards and guidelines. Following the recommendations in the TEITAC report, the draft provisions have been organized in terms of functionality, rather than product categories. For example, the Board separated conversation functionality, including both voice and text (Chapter 9) from audio output functionality, such as alert indicators (Chapter 8).

Structure of the Draft

Segregate the commentary (advisories) and provisions.  The WCAG2.0 Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#guidelines displays the most effective way to navigate through principles providing linkages to support each guideline. Links to definitions provide ease of understanding.

Other formats we have found useful to a developer are “Cheat Sheet” layout http://worksperfectly.net/wcag/  and the Plain(er) Language Version of 508-255 ANPRM at

http://508-255-refresh.trace.wisc.edu/.  Overall readability can be improved upon by segregating the advisories out of the main text and utilizing linkages to reference supportive material.

Change references in document from “WCAG2.0” to “WCAG” to provide flexibility for future versions of the guidelines.

Question 4: The Board seeks feedback on the overall organization of the draft, especially how aspects of technology are addressed by the chapter organization. For example, should software (Chapter 4) and electronic documents (Chapter 5) be combined? Or, should all requirements for audio output, including conversation functionality and status indicator sounds (Chapter 8), be combined with text messaging capability (Chapter 9) into one chapter?

Structure of the Draft

The Chapters cited should remain separated to accommodate the various audience types. Readers comprise various technical skill levels, from office support staff, to developers, to engineers.  Leaving the chapters as discrete segments ensures that specific audiences can access the information they need without being confused by information they may not need.

Question 5: The draft requirement which the Board is considering for access to electronic content in the draft is limited to certain official communications by Federal agencies.

Other types of communications and electronic content are not addressed. The Board seeks comment on this draft requirement and what other types of content including social media (i.e., YouTube and Twitter) should be addressed and the benefits and costs of extending coverage to other forms of electronic content. The Board is interested in comments from agencies about how this provision could be implemented across large and diverse institutions. How should attachments to official email messages be handled? The Board is also interested in information on the benefits and costs associated with this change, particularly from Federal agencies. How should this provision apply to records requested from the National Archives and Records Administration who is prohibited from altering archival records?

508 Chapter 1

Electronic Content (E103.3.1)

Communications required for an employee to do their job should be covered under this provision regardless of the content type (e.g., social media).  When building accessible communications, even with social media, the costs incurred are negligible, if non-existent. This provision allows agencies to employ people with disabilities without requiring changes to their business practices.  Federal agencies are able to exchange information regardless of whether individuals in those agencies have disabilities.

Without this provision, agencies might use social media as a means to circumvent tasks they may consider too arduous to undertake for effective communications (e.g., captioning). Social media has evolved enough to offer accessible options in some of their primary features to facilitate full duplex/real time communication.  Although some features are not fully accessible, companies are aware of the need to provide accommodations as technology evolves.

Use of these emerging technologies should not hinder individuals with disabilities from utilizing the technology for its intended purpose and if it does, its use should be prohibited until the technology adheres to the provision.

Archival material is an acceptable exemption if it results in undue burden, and if a means exists to provide equivalent information to people with disabilities upon request.

Question 6: The Board seeks comment on removing these exceptions and the impact of removing them, including the benefits and costs associated with removing them. Should the exception concerning ICT acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract be repeated in this section and in section E103.4.2?

General Exceptions (E105)

Yes, we are in agreement with the inclusion of an exception concerning ICT acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract.

Question 7: The Board seeks comment on this approach to harmonization with WCAG 2.0 including suggestions for alternative approaches to achieving harmonization, and comments on the benefits and costs associated with the Board’s approach.

Approach: The Board is considering that web pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0, which are Level AA conformant, be deemed to be in conformance with the provisions noted in the draft.

WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (E107)

Harmonization with WCAG Level AA conformance is sound, however we recommend the reference to 2.0 be stricken to cover possible later versions of WCAG and emerging technologies.  Maintaining separate standards requires unnecessary work for everyone involved.

Question 8: The Board is interested in comment on the definition of Information and Communication Technology.

Definitions (E111)

Either

a.) Change including external hard drives to “including, but not limited to: hard drives ….”

or

b.) Change including external hard drives to external storage devices.

The purpose of the change is to add flexibility into newer, undefined technologies that have yet to be introduced to the market.

Question 9: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed definitions.

255 Chapter 1

Definitions (C109)

We don't have adequate expertise to comment.

Question 10: The Board is interested in comment on how the functional performance criteria should be implemented in relation to the technical provisions. Does the approach discussed in E103.5 and C103.6, as a statement of current practice, clarify or confuse the issue? If the approach is confusing, how could it be made less confusing?

Chapter 2: Functional Performance Criteria

Functional Performance Criteria (202)

The approach is confusing and can be simplified by merging the E103.5.1, E103.6.2 along with C103.6.1 and C103.6.2 and place them in Chapter 2.

Question 11: The Board is interested in comment on whether and the extent to which this change will sufficiently improve access for people with limited vision and the benefits and costs associated with this change.

With Limited Vision(202.3)

Yes, we believe that this change will improve access for people with limited vision.

More options offer more choices to those with limited vision.

Question 12: The Board is interested in comment on this proposed new provision, including information on the benefits and costs associated with this addition.

Without Perception of Color (202.4)

Conveying meaning via color poses potential problems for anyone who cannot accurately perceive color. In addition, if the color layout is not designed well, those with normal vision may encounter trouble as well.  Using shapes or descriptions would cover a broader audience.

Question 13: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed change to improve access for individuals with hearing impairments, including information on the benefits and costs associated with this change.

With Limited Hearing(202.6)

The language of the provision is not clear in its interpretation to the reader. The term ‘auditory mode of operation’ is vague and can be loosely interpreted.

For example, there are many technologies to take into consideration such as hardware (i.e., sound card, speakers, etc.), software (i.e., Windows XP’s sound control, Internet application-based (i.e., iTunes), special software (i.e., assistive technology), etc.  So, which one would it be? 

We recommend Advisories to show examples of various modes of operation.

We recommend a link to the term “auditory mode of operation” reference its definition in the ICT section of this document.

Cost is a factor of great concern for individuals who are deaf/hard-of-hearing/hearing-impaired. Acquiring and maintaining auditory aids is a major expense

Question 15: The Board is seeking comment on whether cognitive disabilities are sufficiently addressed in the functional performance provisions and seeks suggestions on how the requirements might better address the accessibility needs of individuals with cognitive disabilities.

Minimize Photosensitive Seizure Triggers (202.11)

We feel that the Access Board did not go far enough to provide support for people with cognitive disabilities.  Specifically, insufficient information was provided to address various aspects of cognitive disabilities, or in providing techniques for remediation.  In addition to minimizing photosensitive seizure triggers, clear language usage within the content itself should be addressed.   Content layout, appropriate use of white space, and lists are ways to improve cognitive performance. Incorporating alternative language translation services into applications will improve cultural competence in the delivery of services.

Those with cognitive disabilities may need more time to comprehend some functionality while learning.  The 302.1 advisory makes good points about such disabilities and the flexibility of electronic formats.  This should be noted in Chapter 2, or have Chapter 2 reference 302.1

We recommend a link to “cognitive disabilities” and define the term in a broader context. The WCAG does not elaborate in their glossary.

Question 16: The Board is interested in comments on how closed functionality is covered in the draft.

Chapter 3: Common Functionality

Closed Functionality (302)

Closed systems are overly restrictive.  We support the best practice of providing alternate formats to remedy potential access problems via audio, video and cognitive assistive technologies where closed systems are used, regardless of the reason, (i.e. design or policy).

Question 17: The draft includes three provisions (406.2, 406.3, and 406.4) not included in the Committee report but that are consistent with WCAG 2.0. Are these provisions important enough for end-users to be included for the sake of harmonization with other standards? The Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs of these additions.

A provision to bypass blocks of content (406.2), consistent with the current standards was recommended for deletion in the Committee report. The Board is considering retaining this provision for consistency with WCAG 2.0. The Board is also considering adding a provision on focus order (406.3) for the same reason, and a new provision covering multiple ways to locate content (406.4), which was recommended by the Committee.

Chapter 4: Platforms, Applications, and Interactive Content

Navigation (406)

Emphasis on harmonization with WCAG is important to include as a separate provision. We support navigation with aids to allow access for varying types of user to move with ease through web pages.   The cost of adding this provision is negligible in terms of training developers in best practices; the benefits to the user community are enormous.

With regard to 406.4, the use of web site-specific access keys may interfere with the keystrokes associated with assistive technology.  More guidance should be provided to avoid such situations -- for example, what access keys can be guaranteed to work regardless of the assistive technology in use?

Question 18: The draft includes a requirement for ICT which provides an assistive technology function. Should the requirements apply to assistive technology? The Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs on including explicit requirements for assistive technology.

Assistive Technology Function (412)

Yes.  This is a sound approach, allowing the user more control over the varying elements on the platform.  We recommend you furnish an advisory with this provision.

Question 19: Do the proposed provisions for authoring tools reflect features that many authoring tools already provide? If not, could such features be added to authoring tools relatively easily? The Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs of including such requirements for authoring tools.

Authoring Tools (413)

Most authoring tools are marketed with accessibility in mind.  We cannot comment on the ease of incorporating a feature into “closed” authoring tools. The benefit of utilizing an authoring tool that is accessible is enabling employees with disabilities to create accessible content, thereby removing a potential barrier to employment for people with disabilities.

Question 20: The Board seeks comment on whether there is a better way to distinguish between requirements for software applications covered by Chapter 4 and electronic documents covered by Chapter 5.

Chapter 5: Electronic Documents

This chapter is oriented towards document authors, rather than developers. However, a lot of the concepts and their verbiage are similar in Chapters 4 and 5.  In addition, it’s not unusual for an author to be a developer, and vice versa.

We suggest that the Access Board improve readability (appears too choppy) by removing advisories and providing links off to the side for the advisories.  (See response to Question 1 above.)

Question 21: The Board seeks comment on whether this proposed approach is successful in making the document more understandable and useful. The Board welcomes alternatives to this organizational approach.

Chapter 6: Synchronized Media Content and Players

Question 22: The Board is interested in comments on whether there is a voluntary consensus standard which could address some issues related to captioning quality, such as the degree of synchronization required and an allowable error rate.

Captions and Transcripts for Audio Content (603)

Audio content that lacks accessible transcription has no real benefits for people with hearing loss. However, by providing transcripts for audio/web files on a web site, it not only will make it accessible to people with hearing problems, but also make it easier for non-native speakers (English as a Second Language) and people with cognitive disabilities will benefit from it.

Another benefit in providing transcripts is that it can make the content on one’s web site searchable because of the text format. Raw audio without transcription is difficult to search, which in turn may be expensive.

If one exports a non-streaming audio (i.e., MP3) on a web site, providing link to the audio files will allow people with hearing loss to use his/her own preferred device (i.e., iPod or an assistive technology product).

The negative drawback is that by acquiring an accurate transcription is time-consuming, labor intensive, and expensive. Unfortunately, this can stretch the labor and monetary resources of companies, agencies and institutions.

Captioning costs can vary greatly depending on the type of software as well as the process.

Considerations for acquiring captioning capability:

a. Is the need for captioning considerable enough to justify expense?

b. Who will be doing the captioning?

c. How will the training be given to people who will be doing the captioning?

d. What kind of captioning support is available?

e. WGBH/NCAM has standards for captioners, which are based on the standards for court reporters.  Aspiring captioners must meet these standards in order to be certified.  Could those standards be adapted for use in this way?

Question 24: The Board seeks comment on whether this change in terminology is sufficient, or if it will result in any confusion or unintended implementation issues. Should this term be defined?

Chapter 7: Hardware Aspects of ICT

Standard Connections (703)

The term is clear.

Add USB as a specific well-known example to help define it as an advisory.

Question 25: The Board is interested in comment on these provisions, including information on the benefits and costs associated with the proposed requirement for volume gain. In addition, the Board seeks comment on whether the specified volume gain for cellular and landline telephones should be consistent since the amplification needs of people who are hard of hearing are the same for both products.

Chapter 8: Audio Output From Hardware

ICT Typically Held to the Ear (803)

Yes. We are in agreement with this provision.  Consistent volume features among similar devices (e.g. telephones) are easier to use and maintain.

Question 28: The Board seeks comment on the requirement that a signal be provided on all incoming calls on VoIP systems. Should the requirement be limited, or should it apply to all such calls? Should this feature be selectable by the user?

Alternate Alerting for VoIP Telephone Systems (907)

Yes. Multi-modal signals to provide alerts for incoming VOIP calls should be a requirement. This feature should be selectable by the user.

Question 29: The Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs of the increased requirements for documentation.

Chapter 10: ICT Support Documentation and ICT Support Services

Accessibility Documentation (1002.2)

Increased requirements for documentation should not impact existing costs if they are known before work begins.  Additional cost will be incurred only if requirements for accessible documentation are ignored at the outset.

Question 33: The Board is interested in comment on the impact on small entities (places of public accommodations and state and local government entities) of the provisions for self-service machines under the Americans With Disabilities Act. How many and what types of small entities utilize self-service machines, and what types of machines do they use? How many small manufacturers make these types of machines? How many of the small entities that use or manufacture self-service machines have machines that are accessible? How much will it cost to develop and produce the technology that would meet the proposed provisions? Should the Board establish different compliance requirements for small entities to have accessible machines? Does the Board need to clarify or simplify the requirements for small entities or exempt certain types of machines from these requirements?

Impact on Small Entities

The  undue administrative burden and fundamental alteration exemptions should continue to prevail where costs allow accessible services prohibited,  The exemption should be documented with justification for non-compliance,  In addition, there should always be available an alternative means of receiving the information.  Providing material in plain text or in an extreme case providing the agency contact person to coordinate and accommodate the individual requesting a service.