[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13457-13468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Parts 1191, 1193, and 1194
[Docket No. 2010-1]
RIN 3014-AA37
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities; Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
Standards
AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) to begin the process of updating its standards for electronic
and information technology and its Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines. At the same time, the Board is proposing to revise its
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines to address
access to self-service machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-
out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants
and cafeterias. The Board has developed draft standards and guidelines
for these purposes. The draft text (draft) is available on the Board's
Web site (http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm). The Board invites the
public to review and comment on all aspects of this draft, including
the advantages and disadvantages of draft provisions, the
organizational approach to presenting the standards and guidelines,
alternative policies to those contained in the draft, and information
on benefits and costs. After reviewing the comments received in
response to this advance notice and draft, the Board will issue a
proposed rule followed by a final rule.
DATES: Comments should be received by June 21, 2010. The Board will
hold a public hearing to provide an additional opportunity for comment.
The hearing will take place on March 25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to noon in
conjunction with the 25th Annual International Technology & Persons
With Disabilities Conference. It will be held at the Manchester Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101.
To pre-register to testify please contact Kathy Johnson at (202) 272-
0041 or board.gov">Johnson@access-board.gov.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 2010-1
or RIN number 3014-AA37, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: board.gov">ictrule@access-board.gov. Include docket number
2010-1 or RIN number 3014-AA37 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 202-272-0081.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and
Informational Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111.
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Creagan, Office of Technical and
Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (voice); 202-
272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: board.gov">creagan@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
enacted. Section 255 of the Act requires manufacturers to ensure that
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment are
designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities when it is readily achievable to do so;
readily achievable means easily accomplishable, without much difficulty
or expense. The Access Board was given the responsibility for
developing accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment
and
[[Page 13458]]
customer premises equipment in conjunction with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). The Board was also instructed to
review and update the guidelines periodically. The Board published the
guidelines on February 3, 1998. 63 FR 5608 (February 3, 1998); 36 CFR
part 1193. The guidelines were based on recommendations from a
Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee that the Board had
created.
On August 7, 1998, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which
includes the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, was signed into
law. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments requires that
when Federal departments or agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use
electronic and information technology, they must ensure that the
technology is accessible to people with disabilities, unless an undue
burden would be imposed on the department or agency. Section 508
required the Access Board to publish standards setting forth a
definition of electronic and information technology and technical and
functional performance criteria for such technology. The Board was also
required to periodically review and, as appropriate, amend the
standards to reflect technological advances or changes in electronic
and information technology. The Board published the standards on
December 21, 2000. 65 FR 80500 (December 21, 2000); 36 CFR part 1194.
The standards were based on recommendations from an Electronic and
Information Technology Access Advisory Committee that the Board had
created to assist it in developing the standards.
Since the Board issued the Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines (guidelines) and the Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards (standards), technology has changed.
Additionally, several organizations have asked the Board to update its
standards so they are harmonized with efforts taking place around the
globe. The telecommunications provisions in the standards are based on
and are consistent with the telecommunications provisions in the
guidelines. Therefore, the Board has decided to update and revise the
standards and the guidelines together to address changes in technology
and to make both documents more consistent. Through this update, the
Board is addressing new technology and seeks to harmonize, to the
extent possible, its criteria with other standards and guidelines in
order to improve accessibility and facilitate compliance.
In addition, the Board is proposing to amend the Americans with
Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAAG) to address access to self-service
machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection,
boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. In
2006, the National Council on Disability released a report, NCD
Position Paper on Access to Airline Self-Service Kiosk Systems, which
recommended that accessibility provisions from ADAAG or the section 508
standards be incorporated into an updated Air Carrier Access Act
regulation for accessible design applicable to both proprietary and
common-use self-service kiosk systems (http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/kiosk.htm). In May 2008 the Department of
Transportation amended its Air Carrier Access Act rules to apply to
foreign carriers but decided to defer action on kiosks and noted that
the Access Board has work under way that could affect kiosks. 73 FR
27614 (May 13, 2008).
There have also been numerous settlement agreements and structured
negotiations reached with various public accommodations on tactile
point of sale devices (http://lflegal.com/category/settlements/point-of-sale-settlements/). With the proliferation of point of sale
machines, kiosks, and other self-service machines, the Board has
decided that in addition to updating the standards for electronic and
information technology and the guidelines for telecommunications
products, it should revise the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines to address access to this new technology to
ensure its accessibility for people with disabilities. The Board
proposes to extend coverage to self-service machines used for
ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection, boarding passes, or
ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. This would include point
of sale devices used to check-in or check-out products at retail
establishments such as those addressed in the settlement agreements and
structured negotiations as well as other self-service machines.
To begin the process of updating the standards and guidelines, the
Board formed the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information
Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC or Committee), to review the
existing standards and guidelines and to recommend changes. The
Committee met regularly from September 2006 to April 2008, and held
numerous teleconferences in between meetings. The Committee's 41
members comprised a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including
representatives from industry, disability groups, standard-setting
bodies in the U.S. and abroad, and government agencies. In their
deliberations, Committee members addressed a range of issues, including
new or convergent technologies, market forces, and international
harmonization. Recognizing the importance of standardization across
markets worldwide, the Committee coordinated its work with standard-
setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, such as the World Wide Web
Consortium, and the Committee included representatives from the
European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
On April 3, 2008 the Committee presented its report to the Board.
The Committee's report recommends detailed revisions to the Board's
section 508 standards and Telecommunications Act accessibility
guidelines. The Committee's report is available on the Board's website
at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/report.
The Board staff has been working with an ad hoc committee of Board
members and staff from several Federal agencies to develop this notice
and draft. The final version of the draft will ultimately replace the
section 508 standards, the Telecommunications Act accessibility
guidelines, and make amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines. In addition to agencies that are represented
on the Board, staff from the Federal Communications Commission, Social
Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and the Department
of Homeland Security have been involved in the ad hoc committee's work.
The draft is available on the Board's website at www.access-board.gov/508.htm. At a later date, the Board will publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking to update the standards and guidelines based on the
input received in response to this advance notice and draft. The
proposed rule will provide another opportunity for public comment. The
Board will also prepare a regulatory assessment to accompany the
proposed rule. To assist the Board in developing the regulatory
assessment, the Board invites comments on the quantitative and
qualitative benefits and costs associated with the changes proposed in
the draft; the Board also asks commenters to provide information on the
benefits and costs of alternative policies which they propose. The
Board will finalize the standards and guidelines based on the comments
received in response to the proposed rule.
[[Page 13459]]
Regulatory Approach
The TEITAC sought to balance the need for detailed criteria with an
approach that accommodates the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of the
technologies covered. Many people, from product designers and engineers
to procurers and end users, have called for clear delineation of what
makes a product accessible for compliance purposes. However, the
Committee determined that product-specific criteria will not keep pace
with innovative trends and market forces which enhance the capabilities
of products and blur their categorization. Convergent technologies, for
example, support the growing demand for all-in-one products, such as
mobile devices that offer voice and text communication, web browsing,
and media players.
The Committee's report recommended a revised set of performance
criteria that specify access capabilities for products generally. The
Committee organized its recommendations to serve as a framework for
updated technical specifications to address hardware, user interfaces
and electronic content, audio-visual players, displays, and content,
real-time voice communication, and authoring tools. Unlike the current
standards, the committee's recommendations are organized primarily by
the features or capabilities of a product, instead of discreet product
types. The recommendations contain advisory and background information
on the performance and technical provisions, including references to
related standards, and update defined terms and provisions covering
documentation, support, and maintenance. The report also advises the
Board on considerations for future updates, supplementary guidance
materials and tools, compliance testing, and further research.
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.
Question 2: The Board seeks input on what implementation time
frames would be reasonable, specifically whether some provisions should
have differing implementation dates.
Structure of the Draft
The draft contains revisions to the current standards and
guidelines which the Board is considering. The revisions are largely
based on the recommendations of the TEITAC report. Some provisions
reflect changes to the TEITAC recommendations made by the Board, as
noted in the detailed summary which follows. The draft also contains
revisions that would amend provisions in the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) by applying
requirements of the standards to self-service machines. The draft
standards and guidelines share a common set of functional performance
criteria (Chapter 2) and technical design criteria (Chapters 3-10), but
have separate introductory chapters (Chapter 1) which outline scoping,
application, and definitions. Chapter 1 labeled, ``508 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration'' addresses products covered by Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act and its provisions are preceded by the
letter ``E''; the other chapter 1 is labeled, ``255 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration'' and addresses telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its provisions are preceded by the
letter ``C''.
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).
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?
Major Changes From Current Requirements
The draft addresses some issues which were not covered in the
current standards or guidelines but were the subject of supplementary
technical guidance. The draft does not seek to change the approach to
these issues but instead makes them explicit. For example, the
relationship between the functional performance criteria and the
technical provisions is unchanged. However the draft text seeks to
clarify (in Chapter 1) that a product may be deemed accessible if it
meets all the technical provisions, even if the functional performance
criteria are not completely met.
The draft does not seek to substantively change the majority of
requirements in the current standards or guidelines, consistent with
the TEITAC report. However, some material is changed in the draft. For
example, the draft contains significant revisions to the general
exceptions. All substantive changes are explained in the Summary of
Provisions below. One of the most significant changes being considered
by the Board involves the application of the guidelines and standards
to electronic content. The Board is proposing to cover electronic
content of certain official communications by Federal agencies. Another
significant change concerns coverage of self-service machines under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Summary of Provisions
This section provides an overview of the draft and highlights
substantive revisions and updates from the TEITAC report, unless
otherwise noted. The draft includes some non-substantive editorial
changes to the TEITAC recommendations made by the Board that are not
detailed in this discussion. In addition to the specific questions
below corresponding to individual provisions, the Board seeks general
comments on these provisions, including the extent to which they are
necessary, their advantages and disadvantages, their quantitative and
qualitative benefits and costs, and alternative policies. The Board
also invites the public to identify any gaps in the draft guidelines
and standards, and approaches to addressing such gaps.
508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
The draft contains provisions for information and communication
technology for Federal departments and agencies, including the U.S.
Postal Service, as set forth in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.
General Requirement (E102)
The draft standards would be applied by Federal agencies so that
employees and members of the public with disabilities have access to
and use of electronic and information technology
[[Page 13460]]
that is comparable to the level of access and usability available to
persons without disabilities unless it would be an undue burden to do
so. The Board added this provision to clarify these responsibilities.
This would not change the scope or application of the standards.
Application (E103)
This section covers application of the standards to information and
communication technology procured, developed, maintained, or used by or
on behalf of Federal agencies. The phrase ``or on behalf of agencies''
has been added to cover technologies used by contractors under a
contract with a Federal agency. A citation to the statute has been
added to this provision. Coverage of agencies is unchanged; however,
the draft provision seeks to provide more detail regarding which
agencies are covered. The term ``Information and Communication
Technology (ICT),'' as defined in section E111, encompasses both
electronic and information technology covered by Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act and telecommunications products covered by Section
255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Committee recommended
use of the broader term ICT for convenience and clarity since the
technical requirements and functional performance criteria apply under
both laws and since the term ICT is widely used by most other
countries.
Electronic Content (E103.3.1)
The amendments to the Rehabilitation Act require that when
developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information
technology, each Federal department or agency shall ensure, unless an
undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that
electronic and information technology allows (regardless of the type of
medium) individuals with disabilities to have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the
information and data by others without disabilities (see 29 U.S.C. 794d
(a)(1)(A)). The current standards do not adequately address what is
meant by comparable access to information and data. There has been much
confusion over whether and how such electronic content is addressed.
The draft contains a new provision which the Board is considering
to address access to electronic content of certain official
communications by Federal agencies or agency representatives. This
draft requirement would apply to electronic content regardless of the
method of transmission or storage but is limited to official agency
communications. ``Official communication'' refers specifically to
communication by a Federal agency to employees that contains
information necessary for those employees to perform their job
functions and information relevant to enjoyment of the benefits and
privileges of employment or to communication by a Federal agency to
members of the general public that contains information necessary for
the conduct of official business with the agency. Examples of such
electronic content may include email messages, Word documents, and
other types and formats. The current standards address access to some
types of electronic content, such as web pages, forms, and video
productions. A definition of ``content,'' is included in section E111.
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?
Undue Burden (E104)
Consistent with the Committee's recommendations, this section in
the draft is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
General Exceptions (E105)
The current standards contain six exceptions. In the draft, two of
the exceptions are retained unchanged: The prohibition against
requiring fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or
components; and the statutory exception for products whose function,
operation, or use involves national security or cryptological
activities. Another exception concerning ICT acquired by a contractor
incidental to a contract has been relocated to the application section
which contains a provision specific to Federal contracts (E103.4.2).
The Board is considering removing three exceptions in the current
standards:
One exception stated that assistive technology need not be
provided at all workstations for all Federal employees (1194.3(c)). The
current standards require that ICT either be directly accessible or
compatible with assistive technology. Since the standards do not
require the provision of assistive technology at each work station, the
Board considers this exception unnecessary.
The second exception states that where agencies provide
information and data to the public through accessible ICT, the
accessible ICT need only be provided at the intended public location
(1194.3(d)). The Board is considering removing this exception from the
standards because no provision in the standards requires accessible ICT
in more than one location. Since these exceptions are contained in the
statute, their removal from the standards will not impact application.
A third exception states that products located in spaces
used only by service personnel for maintenance and repair need not be
accessible. The Board believes this provision is unnecessary since most
functions can be accessed remotely.
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?
Equivalent Facilitation (E106)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (E107)
The Committee recommended that the Board seek to harmonize the
standards with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized. The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C
recommendation on December 11, 2008; about 8 months after the Committee
provided its report to the Board. 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.
Question 7: The Board seeks comment on this approach to
harmonization with WCAG 2.0 including suggestions for
[[Page 13461]]
alternative approaches to achieving harmonization, and comments on the
benefits and costs associated with the Board's approach.
Best Meets (E108)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
Provision of Support Services and Materials (E109)
The Board is considering requiring agencies to provide alternate
methods of communication through help desks and technical support
services and to provide support services and materials in alternate
formats. Chapter 10 of the technical requirements specifies the types
of information to be provided, such as descriptions of the built-
inaccessibility features of a product and information about operation
of features that can be accessed from the keyboard.
Definitions (E111)
The draft contains a number of new definitions. Most defined terms
derive either from the Committee report or from the WCAG 2.0.
Consistent with the Committee's report, the draft seeks to minimize
deviations from industry usage and understanding of defined terms to
ensure consistency with industry standards and best practices.
The draft uses the term ``Information and Communication Technology,
(ICT)'' to refer to both telecommunications products covered by Section
255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to electronic and
information technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act. The Board has defined this term to include existing definitions of
``electronic and information technology'' and ``telecommunications
products'' in the current standards and guidelines. The definition is
intended to encompass a wide expanse of products and the functions for
which they are used.
Question 8: The Board is interested in comment on the definition of
Information and Communication Technology.
Referenced Standards or Guidelines (E112)
Other standards and guidelines referenced in this draft are based
on recommendations from the Committee. The intent is to promote
testability and usability of the draft provisions.
255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
This chapter covers application of the draft to telecommunications
and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products and
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. It applies to manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment and
requires products to be designed, developed, and fabricated to be
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is
readily achievable to do so; readily achievable means easily
accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense.
General Requirement (C102)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines and the Committee recommendations; the draft provision
applies to manufacturers of telecommunications products.
Application (C103)
The draft provisions apply to telecommunications products and
interconnected VoIP products and CPE. This section now specifically
references interconnected VoIP products, consistent with Federal
Communication Commission regulations. An advisory note provides
examples of covered technologies, such as instant messaging that
supports real-time conversation in other modes, and products beyond
those typically thought of as communications devices, such as web
interfaces used to access functions in VoIP systems.
Direct Accessibility (C103.4)
This draft provision is updated yet consistent with the current
guidelines which require telecommunications equipment and CPE to be
directly accessible when it is readily achievable to do so.
Compatibility Design (C103.4.1)
This draft provision is similar to the current guidelines which
require telecommunications equipment and CPE to be compatible with
peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment when it
is readily achievable to do so.
Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility (C103.5)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines.
Information, Documentation, and Training (C104)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines and would require manufacturers to provide access to
information, documentation, and training to their customers. This may
be done through help desks and support services and shall include
alternate methods of communication. Chapter 10 of the technical
requirements specifies the types of information to be provided, such as
descriptions of the built-in accessibility features of a product and
information about operation of features that can be accessed from the
keyboard.
Equivalent Facilitation (C105)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current
guidelines.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (C106)
The Committee recommended that the Board harmonize its rule with
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized. The Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C recommendation on December
11, 2008. The Board is considering that web pages, as defined by WCAG
2.0, which are Level AA conformant, shall be deemed to be in
conformance with the provisions noted in the draft.
Product Design, Development, and Evaluation (C107)
This section is substantially consistent with the current
guidelines which require manufacturers to evaluate the accessibility,
usability, and compatibility of telecommunications products and CPE. It
has been revised to include references to VoIP and other technologies.
Definitions (C109)
The draft contains a number of new definitions. Most defined terms
derive either from the Committee report or WCAG 2.0. Consistent with
the Committee's report, the draft minimizes deviations from industry
usage and understanding of defined terms to ensure consistency with
industry standards and best practices. The definition of
``Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service'' derives
from FCC regulations and was included in the Committee report.
Question 9: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed
definitions.
Referenced Standards or Guidelines (E110)
The external standards and guidelines referenced in the draft are
based on recommendations from the Committee. The intent is to promote
testability and usability of the provisions of this part.
Chapter 2: Functional Performance Criteria
Functional Performance Criteria (202)
This draft provision is consistent with the recommendation of the
Committee to retain all existing functional
[[Page 13462]]
performance criteria and to add a provision that addresses color vision
deficits and a provision to minimize photosensitive seizure triggers.
The Committee and the Board felt it was important that functional
performance criteria map to technical specifications.
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?
General (202.1)
The current standards require products to have at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that meets the functional
performance criteria. More and more products are now multi-functional.
For example, many devices allow users to make telephone calls, send
text messages, and access the Internet. In recognition of this growing
multi-functionality of covered products, the Board is considering
requiring that each mode of operation of a product meet the functional
performance criteria.
Without Vision (202.2)
This provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee report, except for the use of the term
``non-visual access.''
With Limited Vision (202.3)
This provision addresses access to at least one mode of operation
for users with limited vision. The Board is considering revising the
current specification to require that ICT meet the needs of a greater
range of users. The current standards require an accessible mode that
accommodates visual acuity up to 20/70. The Board is considering
increasing the covered range to 20/200, which is the legal definition
of blindness so that more people have the option to use a visual-based
mode instead of non-visual accessible modes.
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.
Without Perception of Color (202.4)
The Committee's report recommended the addition of a provision
specifying that functionality not be based on the ability to perceive
color. This is consistent with the technical provisions in the current
standards that prohibit relying on color alone as the sole means of
indicating status or function.
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 Hearing (202.5)
This draft provision is substantially consistent with the current
standards and the Committee report.
With Limited Hearing (202.6)
This provision seeks to address access for users with limited
hearing. The current standards stipulate that at least one mode be
provided in ``an enhanced auditory fashion.'' The provision the Board
is considering would require that any auditory features, where
provided, include at least one mode of operation that improves clarity,
reduces background noise, or allows control of volume. The Board
included this change to make the requirement more specific. The
Committee considered such a change but did not recommend specific
language.
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.
Without Speech (202.7)
This provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee report.
With Limited Manipulation (202.8) and With Limited Reach and Strength
(202.9)
These draft provisions are consistent with a provision in the
current standards but the Board has separated them into two distinct
provisions. The Board is considering making this change to address
issues of fine motor control or simultaneous actions apart from the
reach ranges or strength necessary to access and operate controls.
These provisions are consistent with technical specifications
addressing reach ranges and operable parts.
Without Physical Contact (202.10)
This is a new provision the Board is considering adding due to the
significant population of users who are unable to make contact with a
product, as well as the many types of technology now available that do
not require physical contact, such as Bluetooth and wireless
connectivity. The Committee considered, but did not reach consensus, on
adding such a requirement. The wording of the provision derives from
that considered by the Committee.
Question 14: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed new
provision to improve access for individuals who are unable to make
contact with a product, including information on the benefits and costs
associated with this change.
Minimize Photosensitive Seizure Triggers (202.11)
This is a new provision which the Board is considering adding to
address hazards posed to people with photosensitive epilepsy. The Board
added this provision as a functional criterion for consistency with
technical specifications for flashing (306).
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.
Chapter 3: Common Functionality
This chapter covers those common features of information and
communication technology which are found across a variety of platforms,
formats, and media. The draft requirements of this chapter which the
Board is considering derive from provisions for self-contained closed
products and desktop and portable computers in the current standards.
The Board organized this chapter to cover all technical requirements
that address elements or functionality common to ICT. These
requirements apply generally to all types of ICT.
Closed Functionality (302)
The Board is considering this draft provision to require that ICT
with closed functionality be usable by people with disabilities without
requiring assistive technology other than personal headsets. The
current standards address this only in relation to self-contained
closed products. The Committee recommended this change since closed
functionality is not product or function specific and may be found in
many contexts, due to either design or policy considerations. For
example, self-contained closed products such as kiosks may be closed
due to design, while software applications may have certain limitations
imposed on functionality due to policy considerations, such as
maintaining security.
Question 16: The Board is interested in comments on how closed
functionality is covered in the draft.
[[Page 13463]]
Should other means of assistive technology besides personal headsets be
permitted to provide access to ICT with closed functionality?
Biometrics (303)
The Committee recommended that the current requirements for
biometric identification be expanded to allow for alternate forms of
user identification or control which may be either biometric or non-
biometric. The requirement for a non-biometric form of user
identification or control is retained. The Board is considering a
requirement for an alternate biometric that uses dissimilar
characteristics to the default biometric.
Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility (304)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee recommendations.
Color (305)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
requirements and the Committee recommendations.
Flashing (306)
In this draft provision the Board is considering specifying a
maximum 3-per-second flash rate for ICT light flashes. This differs
from the current standards which specify that ``products shall be
designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency
greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.'' The Committee recommended
this change because the current provision is too restrictive in
prohibiting flashing within a certain range with no consideration for
the size of the flashing area. The provision is consistent with WCAG
2.0.
Operable Parts (307)
In this draft provision the Board is considering addressing
controls and keys, tactile discernability, key repeat and adjustability
functions, non-mechanical controls, and accessible reach ranges. The
Board is considering revising the provision to reference specifications
for reach ranges in the Board's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for
buildings and facilities, which address both forward and side reach
ranges, since some products may require a variety of approaches. The
current standards only specify side reach ranges. The ADA and ABA
guidelines specify a maximum side reach height that is lower than the
maximum height specified in the current standards (48 inches maximum
instead of 54 inches). This would eliminate any potential conflict
between the ICT requirements and the ADA and ABA accessibility
guidelines.
Chapter 4: Platforms, Applications, and Interactive Content
General (401)
This chapter provides technical requirements for platforms,
applications, and interactive content. The Board separated these
requirements from those for static electronic documents (Chapter 5).
These provisions are harmonized with WCAG 2.0.
Non-Text Content (402)
In this draft section the Board is considering providing technical
requirements for non-text content, including audio and visual content
and CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to tell Computers
and Humans Apart). It references specifications for non-text content in
Chapter 5 and requirements for audio and video content in Chapter 6.
Specifications for all other types of interactive content are contained
in this chapter.
Distinguishable Content (403)
In this section the Board is considering new requirements to
address the difficulties persons with hearing loss or low vision may
experience in distinguishing between foreground and background content,
whether that content is audio (background music to an audio track of
speakers) or text. These draft requirements are based on
recommendations from the Committee. The Board is also considering
adding a provision for resizable text for consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Keyboard Operation (404)
This draft section is substantively unchanged from the current
standards and is consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Time Limits (405)
This draft section is substantively unchanged from the current
standards and is consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Navigation (406)
In this draft section the Board is considering addressing
navigation and includes substantive changes from the current standards
and the Committee's recommendations. 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.
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.
Predictability (407), Input Assistance (408), User Preferences (409),
and Interoperability With Assistive Technology (410)
These draft sections are substantively unchanged from the current
standards and are consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Compatible Technologies (411)
This draft section is consistent with the current standards and
contains provisions that are closely adapted from provisions the
Committee considered but did not reach consensus on.
Assistive Technology Function (412)
The Board is considering a new requirement that closely reflects
recommendations the Committee considered but did not agree on. The
Board added this provision because it believes it is important to
address how applications use platform accessibility services to make
information about components programmatically determinable.
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.
Authoring Tools (413)
In this new section the Board is considering requiring that for all
formats supported by an authoring tool, the authoring tool must provide
a mode of operation that supports the creation of electronic documents
that conform to the ICT accessibility requirements. The Committee
recommended that authoring tools be required to support the ability to
improve the accessibility of content.
Question 19: Do the proposed provisions for authoring tools reflect
[[Page 13464]]
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.
Chapter 5: Electronic Documents
The Board is considering separating requirements that generally
apply to non-interactive content (Chapter 5) from those that generally
apply to interactive interfaces (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 covers access to
electronic documents which contain mostly static, read-only, non-
interactive electronic content. Electronic content covered by this
chapter includes most non-paper documents and web content, regardless
of format. Examples include word processing files (such as Word and
WordPerfect), Portable Document Format (PDF), presentations (such as
Power Point), spreadsheets (such as Excel), and simple web pages not
containing embedded objects (such as Flash, Silverlight, or Air). All
of these elements are covered in this chapter. In addition, electronic
documents may also contain some modest interactive components such as
hypertext links, buttons, and form elements or fields. These common
elements are covered in this chapter as well. The draft provisions of
this chapter derive from requirements in the current standards for web-
based intranet and internet information and applications. Whereas the
current standards focus on web-based documents, this chapter would
apply to a wide range of content formats.
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.
Non-Text Content (502)
This provision is consistent with the current standards but
provides more detail on what constitutes a ``text equivalent'' for many
common situations.
Adaptable Presentation of Content (503)
In this section the Board is considering addressing adaptable
presentation of content, including features which allow content to be
presented in different ways without losing or changing information or
the structure of the content, such as contrast options for viewing
websites. Other elements of presentation include the ability to
programmatically determine the information, structure, and
relationships implied by visual or auditory formatting. When a screen
reader reads content, the presentation format of the content changes,
but the information provided and the structure or relationships of the
content do not. For example, columns in a table should still be
distinguishable from rows, separate paragraphs of information should
still be separate, and the arrangement of the content should still be
apparent. This draft section contains specifications based on the
current standards for data tables, scripts, and forms, but includes new
provisions for logically correct reading sequence and sensory
characteristics.
Distinguishable Presentation of Text Content (504)
This draft section is based on requirements in the current
standards for web-based intranet and internet information and
applications but includes new specifications for contrast and text
enlargement. The Committee recommended contrast ratios for text and
images of text of at least 4.5:1. The draft includes a requirement that
text be easily resizable for consistency with WCAG 2.0 which the Board
is considering.
Navigation and Orientation (505)
In this draft section the Board is considering addressing
navigation and orientation and stems from the current standards but
includes new requirements regarding link purpose in context, headings,
and labels. The draft contains new requirements which the Board is
considering which state that the purpose of each link shall be
determinable from the link text alone, or from the link text together
with it's programmatically determined link text, unless the author
intends the purpose of the link to be ambiguous. The reason for this
requirement is to allow users to understand the purpose of each link so
they can determine whether they want to follow the link. In addition,
the Committee report included an advisory note recommending that
specifications for document titles (505.2) apply not just to frames, as
in the current standards, but broadly to all document types. The Board
also has included this provision as a requirement for greater
consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Readability (506)
This draft provision which the Board is considering is new and
requires that the language of documents and changes in language be
identified. It is consistent with WCAG 2.0.
Input Assistance (507)
This draft provision is consistent with requirements in the current
standards for web based forms but has been revised to apply to all
types of forms.
Compatible Technologies (508)
In this new draft section the Board is considering requiring that
content using mark up languages, such as XML or HTML, use that language
according to specification when creating electronic content so that
user agents, such as assistive technology like screen readers, will be
able to properly interpret and read the content. The Committee noted
that a screen reader may be unable to properly interpret content which
has been improperly coded, so this provision is intended to address
that issue. The Committee recommended this addition as an advisory
(non-mandatory) provision, but the Board is considering the addition as
a requirement to better harmonize the draft with WCAG 2.0.
Chapter 6: Synchronized Media Content and Players
Chapter 6 addresses audio and visual electronic content as well as
players of that content. Other forms of electronic content are
addressed in Chapter 4 (Platforms, Applications, and Interactive
Content) and Chapter 5 (Electronic Documents). In order to address the
broader range of content now in use, references to ``multimedia video''
have been replaced by the term ``synchronized media,'' as recommended
by the Committee. The Board recognizes that while much of the draft
maintains a functional approach to the requirements, Chapters 6 through
9 adopt a more product oriented approach.
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.
Video or Audio Content With Interactive Elements (602)
This is a new provision which the Board is considering to address
technology that allows users to interact with video or audio content.
It was recommended by the Committee to address a new development in
technology that occurred after the current standards were issued.
Captions and Transcripts for Audio Content (603)
This draft provision is derived substantively from the current
standards but has been reorganized for clarity. It
[[Page 13465]]
distinguishes pre-recorded content from real-time content and audio-
only content from synchronized media.
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.
Video Description and Transcripts for Video Content (604)
The term ``video description'' was recommended by the Committee to
replace the term ``audio description.'' Video description is used to
refer to the process whereby visual content is made accessible by the
insertion of verbal or auditory description of on-screen visuals
intended to describe important visual details. ``Video description'' is
the preferred terminology.
This draft provision derives substantively from the current
standards, but has been reorganized for clarity. It distinguishes pre-
recorded content from real-time content and visual-only content from
synchronized media.
The Board is considering adding a new provision on multiple visual
areas of focus to address a problem experienced by persons with
disabilities when there are multiple, simultaneous sources of
information and data being provided on-screen. People with disabilities
may miss some of the information displayed simultaneously on a screen,
when some, but not all, of the information is described. A typical
example is text on screen that states the name and title of the person
speaking, but the text is not included in the main audio output. This
provision is intended to address that concern.
The Board departed from a Committee recommendation for video
description of pre-recorded content by keeping it as an unconditional
requirement, consistent with the current standards. The Committee
recommended an option for providing a text description of video content
where space is not available in the main program for synchronized video
descriptions. However, new technology for ``extended description'' may
support conformance to this provision without fundamentally altering
pre-recorded synchronized media. Extended description allows users to
pause a video to listen to a description and resume playing the video.
Caption Processing Technology (605)
This draft provision addresses technologies that display and
process captions and is distinct from provisions for caption content
(603). The Committee recognized that current audio visual players and
displays may be separate components of a larger system.
Video Description Processing Technology (606)
This draft provision addresses technologies that play and process
video descriptions and is distinct from requirements for video
description of content (604). It is substantively consistent with the
current standards but specifies distinct provisions to be followed for
both analog signal tuners and digital television tuners.
User Controls for Captions and Video Description (607)
This draft provision covers user controls for captions as well as
video descriptions and differs from the current standards which only
address video description controls and are not as comprehensive in
scope. As recommended by the Committee, this provision addresses on-
screen menus, a new technology not addressed by the current standards.
Audio Track and Volume Control (608)
This is a new provision being considered by the Board to address
the issue of background audio as a barrier to understanding speech in
video content. It reflects the new digital television standard that
allows separating audio content into separate tracks. Rather than
applying a requirement on content authoring, this provision requires
ICT that displays and processes synchronized media to allow user
adjustment and selection for multi-channel videos.
Question 23: The Board seeks comment on any impact this approach
may have on manufacturers of hardware or software for audio video
players.
Chapter 7: Hardware Aspects of ICT
This chapter covers those features of ICT relating to hardware. The
requirements of this chapter derive from provisions for self contained
closed products, desktop and portable computers, and telecommunication
products in the current standards, as well as provisions for output,
display, and control functions in the guidelines. The Committee sought
to cover all requirements specifically related to hardware in one
chapter.
Reach Ranges for Installed or Free-Standing ICT (702)
The Committee recommended that specifications for reach ranges in
the current ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines, which address both
forward and side reach ranges, be referenced due to technologies that
may require a variety of approaches. This is a change from the current
standards which only addressed side reach ranges. In addition, the ADA
and ABA Accessibility Guidelines specify a maximum side reach height
that is lower than the maximum height specified in the current
standards (48 inches maximum instead of 54 inches).
Standard Connections (703)
This provision derives from the Committee report and current
standards and addresses reach ranges for free-standing ICT. The Board
is considering modifying the provision by replacing references to
``slots, ports and connectors,'' with the term ``connection points''
which encompasses a wider variety of possible ways of connecting to
devices, such as infrared and Bluetooth.
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?
Text, Images of Text, and Symbols for Product Use (704)
This is a new provision that would require that when text, images
of text, and symbols are provided on hardware for product use, they
must provide one mode of operation which provides the same information
in electronic format, unless an exception applies. Without the addition
of a provision to make the information available electronically,
someone who is blind would not be able to independently read
information on the bottom of products such as symbols describing
various ports on a portable computer. In addition, text, images of
text, and symbols must conform to minimum requirements for size and
contrast ratio. This provision was recommended by the Committee. The
Board added measurement specifications on text attributes, derived from
the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines.
Chapter 8: Audio Output From Hardware
Following recommendations from the Committee to orient requirements
to functions of products, the Board has organized criteria for audio
output functionality into a separate chapter. As structured, this
chapter is a departure from the current standards and guidelines which
located volume control provisions in separate sections associated with
different product types. The provisions of this chapter address
[[Page 13466]]
the audio output functionality of products such as telephones and
information kiosks, as well as media products, such as portable music
players.
Interactive ICT Within Reach (802)
This draft provision being considered by the Board applies to those
products that have audio output, are adjustable by the user, and are
within the reach of the user, such as telephones and information
kiosks. Consistent with a Committee recommendation for audio
connection, this provision requires products with audio output to
provide a means of listening through a handset, jack, or connection
adaptor. It would also require that features be provided to control
volume through hardware such as jacks and speakers, as well as software
controls for audio.
ICT Typically Held to the Ear (803)
The Board is considering this provision to address requirements for
volume gain in products with audio output (either two way voice
communication or one way audio output), that are typically held to the
ear. It specifies a minimum adjustable gain level of 18 dB, with a
baseline to ensure measurability and consistency among products. These
specifications differ from the current standards and guidelines (which
require a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB but do not specify a
baseline). In addition, the provision differs from the recommendation
of the Committee.
The Committee recommended harmonization with the current FCC Part
68 regulation, which requires a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 18
dB gain for analog telephones and a 15 dB minimum gain for other
telephones. However, FCC Part 68 specifies 12 dB as an allowable
minimum gain. The Board is concerned that a product designed with a 12
dB or 15 dB minimum gain will not sufficiently meet the needs of
individuals with hearing impairments.
This section also includes requirements for incremental volume
control and automatic reset that are consistent with the current
standards and guidelines. An exception for reset manual override was
added at the recommendation of the Committee and is consistent with FCC
policy (see FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 01-578, March 5, 2001;
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-578A1.doc).
The requirements specified in the FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order have
been included in the draft.
Requirements for magnetic coupling and minimized interference
(803.5) are also included in this section and are consistent with the
standards and guidelines. The Board departed from the recommendations
of the Committee by including a requirement for magnetic coupling to
apply to headsets because they are part of telecommunications products.
The draft extends the minimized interference requirement to ICT that
may not necessarily be used for telecommunications, such as wands used
for listening to museum audio tours.
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.
ICT Not Typically Held to the Ear (804)
This section addresses volume gain, incremental volume control, and
automatic reset in products that are not typically held to the ear. The
Board departed from Committee recommendations and did not differentiate
requirements for products designed for personal use, such as speaker
telephones, from products designed for communal use, such as
information transaction machines.
Chapter 9: Conversation Functionality and Controls
This chapter addresses products that support a telecommunications
conversation, whether it is in an audio, text, or video format.
Real-Time Text Functionality (902)
This section contains detailed specifications being considered by
the Board for real-time text (RTT) and for hardware and software
systems that support its functionality. Products covered include
terminals, such as telephones, as well as pass-through products,
including routers. These specifications are based on recommendations
from the Committee and are considerably more comprehensive than those
of the current standards and guidelines that only address TTY text.
The Board considered referencing the RFC-4103 standard for VoIP
systems that connect to other VoIP systems using session initiation
protocol (SIP). (RFC is otherwise known as the Request for Comments--a
series of Internet standards and protocols distributed by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority; see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4103/). However, since the RFC-4103 was not developed through a
standards development organization, the Board did not include a
reference to it in this draft.
Question 26: Is there a similar standard to the RFC-4103 standard
that has been published by a standards development organization that
the Board could reference?
Voice Mail, Messaging, Auto-Attendant, Conferencing and Interactive
Voice Response (903)
This provision corresponds to specifications in the current
standards for interactive voice response TTY compatibility but also
applies to other real time text. The Committee recommended that this
provision reference G.711 specifications for audio intelligibility in
the ITU-T Standard (International Telecommunication Union
Telecommunication Standardization Sector). Instead, the Board has
chosen to reference the G.722 standard which provides greater
accessibility through superior clarity. As recommended by the
Committee, this section also includes a new provision for message and
prompt navigation.
Information About Call Status and Functions (904)
This section addresses caller identification and similar functions
and is substantially similar to specifications in the current
standards. An advisory note clarifies other types of call status
information covered.
Video Communications Support (905)
This is a new provision recommended by the Committee to require
interoperable technology support for people who use sign language to
communicate via telecommunications. It addresses signals as well as
terminals and includes a provision that supports audio input and
output. The Board enhanced specifications for video communication
quality by adding requirements for data stream and display screens,
including the provision of an alternate video display screen, and
revised requirements for speed and resolution. In addition, the Board
added a requirement for an indication of camera status for security
reasons and specifications for end-user controls to help ensure
privacy. At the recommendation of the Committee, the Board also
included a provision to support a non-auditory alerting system.
Question 27: The Board seeks comment on this requirement. Are the
specifications for video quality sufficient to support accessibility?
Are
[[Page 13467]]
there other ways of addressing video communications that are less
complex?
Audio Clarity for Interconnected VoIP (906)
This is a new section which the Board is considering that addresses
the ability to enhance clarity in audio through VoIP systems. This
requirement is based on a recommendation from the Committee report, but
the Board has revised it to reference the G.722 standard instead of the
G.711 standard to provide greater accessibility.
Alternate Alerting for VoIP Telephone Systems (907)
As recommended by Committee, in this new section the Board is
considering requiring that a signal be provided to indicate incoming
calls on VoIP systems. This requirement can be met through either
built-in or compatible signaler solutions. Advisory notes clarify
sufficiency of audible and visual signaling technology.
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?
Chapter 10: ICT Support Documentation and ICT Support Services
This chapter covers product support documentation and services and
is largely consistent with requirements in the current standards and
guidelines. The Board is considering new provisions to enhance
specifications for documentation (1002) and support services (1003).
ICT Support Documentation (1002)
This section addresses documentation for accessibility features
(1002.2) and provision of product documentation in alternate formats
(1002.3). The overall requirements of this section remain substantively
unchanged.
Accessibility Documentation (1002.2)
The Board is considering revising the provision for documentation
to specifically require that product documentation address those
features that support accessibility, including the capability to change
settings, and those features that support compatibility with assistive
technology (1002.2.2). This revision, as recommended by the Committee,
represents a change from the current standards, which do not include
such a requirement, and the guidelines, which require a description of
the compatibility features of a product upon request. In addition, the
Board included a new requirement that when product components are
intended to be integrated as part of a system, information must be
provided on how to configure the system to support accessibility
(1002.2.3).
Question 29: The Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs of
the increased requirements for documentation.
The Board is also considering adding a new provision that would
require that documentation be provided on all features using only the
keyboard (1002.2.4). This includes information on available keyboard
commands and keyboard navigation. The Committee discussed this change,
but did not achieve consensus on it.
Alternate Formats (1002.3)
This provision requires that product documentation be made
available in alternate formats. It has been revised to require that
alternate formats meet relevant specifications for electronic documents
in Chapter 5.
ICT Support Services (1003)
This section addresses access to product support services where
provided, such as help desks and technical support services. It has
been revised, as recommended by the Committee to require that help desk
and technical support services provide information on ICT accessibility
features through a referral to a point of contact, and that information
on a contact method be provided (1003.2.2). The Board clarified the
requirement that help desks and technical support services shall
provide information and training on ICT accessibility features directly
to the end user, where appropriate (1003.2.1). The current standards
only generally require that support services accommodate the
communication needs of end-users with disabilities, while the
guidelines require provision of contact information for manufacturers
of telecommunications products.
The requirement that help desk and technical support services
provide alternate methods of communication (1003.2) is consistent with
the provisions in the current standards and guidelines. Documentation
on ICT accessibility features must be provided by help desks and
technical support services in alternate formats upon request. In
addition, alternate methods of communication, such as in-person and
remote communication is required.
Amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines
Automatic Teller Machines, Fare Machines, and Self-Service Machines
(220)
As part of this advance notice, the Board proposes to supplement
provisions in its ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to address
access to self-service machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-
out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants
and cafeterias.
The Board maintains similar guidelines under the Architectural
Barriers Act (ABA) which applies to facilities that are federally
funded. Since the section 508 standards apply to ICT in the Federal
sector, corresponding changes to the ABA guidelines are not considered
necessary. ADAAG already addresses access to automated teller machines
(ATMs) and to fare vending machines and provides scoping requirements
(section 220) and technical specifications (section 707) for such
devices. In its update of ADAAG in 2004, the Board considered
supplementing these provisions to cover other types of interactive
transaction machines (ITMs). The Board opted to defer action at that
time to monitor the application of the section 508 standards to ITMs in
the Federal sector.
In the draft, the Board is considering extending coverage of ADAAG
section 220 beyond ATMs and fare vending machines to other kinds of
self-service machines. The ADAAG changes being considered by the Board
would apply relevant requirements of the section 508 standards to these
types of machines but would not change existing requirements for ATMs
or fare vending machines. The provision references chapters 3 through 9
of the standards.
The changes being considered by the Board would supplement ADAAG
220 to specifically cover self-service machines used for ticketing,
check-in or check-out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering
food in restaurants and cafeterias (220.2). Two exceptions are being
considered. One exception notes that self-service machines are not
required to comply with sections 302; 409-412; 503.1-503.3; 506; 508;
703; 802.2.3; and 802.2.4 of the draft. These provisions generally
address requirements for products to interoperate with assistive
technology and therefore are not appropriate for self-service machines.
A second exception exempts drive-up only self-service machines.
Question 30: The Board seeks comment from users and manufacturers
of self-service machines on their
[[Page 13468]]
experiences in using or designing accessible machines and the benefits
and costs associated with the proposed requirements.
Impact on Small Entities
The Board is interested in receiving comments on the potential
impact of this rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). In particular, the Board is seeking input on the
numbers of small entities that may be impacted by this rulemaking, and
the potential compliance costs to these small entities. Section 601 of
the RFA defines small entities as small businesses (defined by the U.S.
Small Business Administration), small not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.
The Board is also seeking comment on any significant alternatives that
can minimize the economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities
while accomplishing the Board's objectives.
Question 31: The Board is interested in comment on the impact on
small entities of the provisions implementing section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act for technology procured, developed, maintained, or
used by or on behalf of Federal agencies. The phrase ``or on behalf of
agencies'' covers technologies used by contractors under a contract
with a Federal agency. How many contractors and subcontractors would be
considered small entities under the SBA small business size standards?
What types of compliance costs will these contractors and
subcontractors face in developing the technologies covered by section
508? For example, will small contractors and subcontractors face
capital costs for equipment, or hiring professional expertise or extra
staff to comply with the requirements? Will the cost of implementation
create a competitive disadvantage for small contractors versus large
contractors? (i.e., will a small contractor become less likely to win a
Federal contract based on price?) Should the Board establish different
compliance or reporting requirements for small contractors and
subcontractors? Does the Board need to clarify or simplify the
compliance requirements for small contractors or exempt certain small
contractors from these requirements?
Question 32: The Board is interested in comment on the impact on
small entities (manufacturers of telecommunications products) of the
provisions implementing section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. How many manufacturers of telecommunications products would be
considered small entities, particularly with the application of this
rule to interconnected VoIP products? What types of compliance costs
will small manufacturers face? The Board is interested in small
business estimates for services required by this rule such as providing
access to information, documentation, and training of customers (for
example through help desks and support services). Will this section
require extra technology, professional expertise or extra staff? Are
there alternative ways that small manufacturers can provide information
and training at lower costs? Should the Board establish different
compliance or reporting requirements for small manufacturers?
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?
The Board will hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for
comment. The hearing will take place on March 25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to
Noon in conjunction with the 25th Annual International Technology &
Persons with Disabilities Conference. It will be held at the Manchester
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market Place, San Diego, CA
92101. The hearing location is accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Sign language interpreters and real-time captioning will
be provided. For the comfort of other participants, persons attending
the hearing are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and
other fragrances. To pre-register to testify please contact Kathy
Johnson at (202) 272-0041 or board.gov">Johnson@access-board.gov.
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-6245 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P