Responses to Section A. Accessibility standards to apply to Web sites of covered titles II and III entities (Question 1-4)
A. Accessibility standards to apply to Web sites of covered titles II and III entities
As previously mentioned, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C®) has created recognized voluntary international guidelines for Web accessibility. These guidelines, set out in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), detail how to make Web content accessible to individuals with disabilities. The most recent and updated version of the WCAG, the WCAG 2.0, was published in December 2008 and is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (last visited June 29, 2010). According to the WAI, the WCAG 2.0 “applies broadly to more advanced technologies; is easier to use and understand; and is more precisely testable with automated testing and human evaluation.”See WAI, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php (last visited June 29, 2010).Show citation box
The WCAG 2.0 contains 12 guidelines addressing Web accessibility. Each guideline contains testable criteria for objectively determining if Web content satisfies the guideline. In order for a Web page to conform to the WCAG 2.0, the Web page must satisfy the criteria for all 12 guidelines under one of three conformance levels: A, AA, or AAA. The three levels of conformance indicate a measure of accessibility and feasibility. Level A, which is the minimum level of conformance for access, contains criteria that provide basic Web accessibility and that are the most feasible for Web content developers. Level AA, which is the intermediate level for access, contains enhanced criteria that provide more comprehensive Web accessibility and yet are still feasible for Web content developers. Level AAA, which is the maximum level of access, contains criteria that may be less feasible for Web content developers. In fact, WAI does not recommend that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire Web sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA criteria for some content. See W3C®, Understanding WCAG 2.0: Understanding Conformance (Dec. 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html (last visited June 29, 2010).Show citation box
Standards for Web site accessibility also exist for Federal government agencies, which are required to make their Web sites accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794(d) (section 508). Specifically, the Web sites of Federal government agencies must comply with the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards (section 508 standards) published by the U.S. Access Board, 36 CFR 1194, available at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm (last visited June 29, 2010). The Access Board is currently revising the section 508 standards, in part to harmonize the standards with model guidelines, such as the WCAG.Show citation box
Question 1. Should the Department adopt the WCAG 2.0's “Level AA Success Criteria” as its standard for Web site accessibility for entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA? Is there any reason why the Department should consider adopting another success criteria level of the WCAG 2.0? Please explain your answer.
The Committee on Institutional Cooperation's Information Technology Accessibility and Usability Advisory Group (CIC IT Accessibility) supports the adoption of the WCAG 2.0 Level AA Success Criteria as the legal standard for web accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The web is inherently an international technology with international governance. Therefore, it is most sensible to leverage the work of the standards-setting bodies of the web - particularly the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative and its work on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines - as the foundation of U.S. standards on web site accessibility.
Question 2. Should the Department adopt the section 508 standards instead of the WCAG guidelines as its standard for Web site accessibility under titles II and III of the ADA? Is there a difference in compliance burdens and costs between the two standards? Please explain your answer.
It is the position of CIC IT Accessibility that the adoption of a single set of accessibility standards is of overriding importance. Implementing a strengthened Americans with Disabilities Act that specifically addresses success criteria for accessibility of ALL online public accommodations would diminish - if not render obsolete - the need for a unique set of requirements relating to the accessibility of online accommodations of federally funded facilities.
The most cost-efficient outcome of the DoJ's effort to explicitly extend the reach of the ADA to online public accommodations would be the endorsement of a single standard for accessibility based on the WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
It is assumed the requirements of the current section 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems and section 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications of Section 508 published in 1999 would be deprecated in favor of new requirements based on WCAG 2.0 success criteria if web accessibility is included as part of ADA.
Question 3. How should the Department address the ongoing changes to WCAG and section 508 standards? Should covered entities be given the option to comply with the latest requirements?
Web technologies and developer design patterns continue to evolve at a rapid pace, therefore it is recommended the DOJ support the development of best practice techniques for meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria specified as requirements under the ADA. The techniques should include both minimal and optimal techniques for making web resources not only accessible, but also usable by people with disabilities. Many of the minimal requirements for some technologies could be taken from the current WCAG 2.0 techniques document. The techniques will need to be reviewed on at least an annual basis to take into account changes in web technology, developer design patterns, browsers, video/audio players and assistive technology capabilities.
It is recommended the DOJ support the development of an ADA techniques group that would be able to collaborate and harmonize efforts with other international groups to develop techniques for specific web technologies such as HTML, Javascript, SVG, Video, Audio, Adobe PDF and Flash. The process of developing the techniques should allow for open public participation, review and comment; and include both minimal and optimal techniques for the meeting of success criteria with a particular technology.
The techniques are important because they can be used by tool developers to support accessible authoring and evaluation tools. The availability of a set of techniques would help ensure that authoring tools are more consistent in how they author web-accessible materials and evaluation tools would give more consistent results in identifying accessibility features and problems. Rules in evaluation tools can also provide much more specific information on a violation of a success criteria and help minimize the need for manual inspection of accessibility features.
Since the WCAG 2.0 documents are intended to be technology-neutral, CIC IT Accessibility does not anticipate that the success criteria therein will be in a constant state of flux. New technologies for presenting content will likely continue to be developed, however. Review and revision of techniques recommended to implement the ADA success criteria in these emerging technologies must be a continuing feature of the DoJ's web accessibility efforts.
Compliance with the latest requirements should follow a similar review structure and timeline to the implementation of the initial ADA web accessibility requirements under discussion here.
Question 4. Given the ever-changing nature of many Web sites, should the Department adopt performance standards instead of any set of specific technical standards for Web site accessibility? Please explain your support for or opposition to this option. If you support performance standards, please provide specific information on how such performance standards should be framed.
If a set of specific technical standards is chosen, then a process for frequent revision of the technical standards will be required. Otherwise there is the risk that some standards will become irrelevant over time. The WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and Success Criteria are written in a technology-neutral fashion that makes frequent updates less necessary. Each success criterion given for WCAG 2.0 Guidelines includes a list of techniques, or combinations of techniques, to be used to meet each success criterion. In many cases, multiple sufficient techniques are available to choose from. As new techniques are identified that meet a given success criterion, they are added to the listing. This approach allows existing WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria to remain relevant over time.
The proposed revisions to Section 508 provide for adaptation to new technologies as well:
It states in E107 that web pages that conform to level AA of WCAG 2.0 will be considered to meet all of the rules in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 except for extra requirements that address user preferences, authoring tools, and multimedia. This appears to mean that techniques listed as sufficient for SC in WCAG 2.0 apply for the proposed revisions to Section 508 as well.
In E106 the proposed revisions provide for “Equivalent Facilitation” in cases where technologies that provide for equivalent or greater access can be used instead of the rules.
E103.5.2 goes further stating that if the proposed rules do not fully cover a product’s features, that a broader functional performance criteria can be used (supplied in Chapter 2) to evaluate compliance.
Language that is inclusive of the WCAG 2.0’s techniques for meeting guidelines and success criteria along with the proposed revision to Section 508’s Equivalent Facilitation and Functional Performance Criteria would give the ADA’s update lasting relevancy. However, these performance standards alone cannot fully assure accessibility. Human testing should be used whenever possible to further verify automated testing and in cases where only human testing can confirm accessibility.