|
| |
UNDERSTANDING THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Data, Tools and Research
May 25 and 26, 1999
US Department of Commerce
Washington DC
THE GROWING DIGITAL DIVIDE IN ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES:
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
By
Cynthia
D. Waddell, J.D.
This White Paper was
commissioned by the National Science Foundation to be presented on May 25,
1999 at the “Understanding the Digital Economy” conference; a public
conference convened in response to a directive from the President of the
United States to the National Economic Council, in consultation with executive
branch agencies.[1]
The conference is timely
because there are significant law and policy issues impacting the community of
people with disabilities in their ability to overcome digital barriers and
participate in the digital economy. The
growth and success of the emerging digital economy requires that attention be
paid to the mechanism for enabling dynamic participation.
Unless the civil rights of America’s 54 million[2]
people with disabilities are addressed during this period of rapid,
technological development, the community will be locked out from participation
on the basis of disability and the technological world will not be enriched by
their diverse contributions.
The impact is systemic and
reaches all sectors of our economy, whether or not the participant is a
consumer, business owner, employee, educator, student, parent, child or
citizen. Specific digital economy
barriers need to be addressed in our research in order to inform our civil
rights laws and public policy. As
a person with a disability responsible for local government compliance with
state and federal disability rights law, the author joins stakeholders in
seeking a smart process that engages both individual differences and the
collective community.[3]
This paper identifies some
of the emerging digital economy barriers, current efforts to address these
barriers and expresses the author’s vision of the long-term policy research
agenda. Because the benefits for
overcoming these barriers extend beyond the community of people with
disabilities, there are practical and significant business reasons for
addressing this issue. Rather
than creating a growing digital divide, emerging technology can enable full
participation in the digital economy for everyone, regardless of age,
disability or the limitations of the technology available.[4]
Return
to the Table of Contents
As we examine the civil
rights requirements for access and fairness, note the additional benefits that
accrue: by mainstreaming the
functionality found in the assistive computer arena into the architecture of
our digital economy, we will expand technological innovations and develop
creative solutions. By embracing
our individual differences, the collective community receives greater benefits
than that achieved through the segregation and isolation of people with
disabilities.
Because the digital economy
by definition requires a dynamic Internet environment, the very functionality
required by the disability community can satisfy this dynamic requirement for
web-based transactions. Accessible
web design enables dynamic web sites- whether or not it is for business
transactions, voting or long-distance learning.
In addition, many benefits are emerging in the application of
accessible web design. Accessible
web design enables CD and videotapes to be archived through captioning.
Accessible web design also enables electronic textbooks to be
accessible. Even illiterate
populations can access the Internet by listening to screen readers audibly
reading the web.
And lastly, web
accessibility enables low technology to access high technology.
People with slow modems and low bandwidth can access the electronic
content of the web. Even
consumers without state of the art computer equipment or who only have a
telephone, can participate in an accessible Internet environment using a
telephone browser.
As Susan Brummel Turnbull
pointed out in her white paper, “People with Disabilities and the NII:
Breaking Down Barriers, Building Choice,[5]
the public interest for investing in the National Information Infrastructure (NII)
and people with disabilities is that it:
-
Removes communications and
information access barriers that restrict business and social interactions
between people with and without disabilities
-
Removes age-related barriers to
participation in society
-
Reduces language and
literacy-related barriers to society
-
Reduces risk of information worker
injuries
-
Enhances global commerce
opportunities.
Return
to the Table of Contents
The more the marketplace is
transformed into a digital economy, the more obvious it is to the community of
people with disabilities that they cannot participate due to inaccessible web
design.[6]
It is true that on a case by case basis computer stations with
assistive computer technology can be tailored to the particular needs of
people with disabilities. But we
have not fully addressed the linkage of the individual with the Internet
community as a whole. Rapid changes in the Internet environment require that
we examine not only the end-user workstation needs but also the technology
barriers emerging beyond the computer workstation.
End-users utilizing assistive computer technology cannot conduct web
transactions if the Internet environment does not accommodate the
functionality needs of accessible design.
Unless this problem is addressed, expenditures on infrastructure and
technology accommodations will be wasted if attention is not paid to the
end-user locked out of the Internet due to inaccessible design.
According to the National
Council on Disability[7],
computers and the Internet are used by a significant number of people with
disabilities in America.[8]
But because the Internet environment is inaccessible, it is difficult
to count the number of people with disabilities who would like to participate
but cannot because of the barriers to access.
Counting users on the Internet is like counting the number of people
using wheelchairs who are inside an inaccessible building.
It was once thought that since no wheelchair users were in the
building, ramps were not needed.
The transformation of the
Internet from a text-based medium to a robust multi-media environment has
created a crisis – a growing digital divide in access for people with
disabilities. Previously, people
with visual disabilities were able to access the Internet with their screen
readers audibly reading aloud the text on a web page.
Today, graphical web pages are a barrier if they do not incorporate
accessible web design.
This barrier is systemic
and must be addressed in our policies as well as in our education and
outreach. In their practical
guide to the information economy for executives and policymakers, Information
Rules: A Strategic Guide to the
Network Economy, authors Shapiro and Varian point out that “[t]oday more
than 60 percent of Internet traffic is to Web Sites, and of the Web traffic,
almost three-fourths is images.”[9]
The problem for screen
readers is that inaccessible web page design either hides the text within
images, frames, applets or animated gifs or renders the text unintelligently
in table, columnar, or portable document format (pdf).
Even on-line forms are inaccessible especially when designed to prevent
keyboard navigation and input. Whether
the form is posted for school or event registration or on-line banking or
shopping transactions, people with visual and/or mobility disabilities are
faced with a significant barrier to participation.
But the impact is not
limited to people with visual and mobility disabilities.
People with specific learning disabilities are also finding that they
can no longer access web pages audibly with screen readers.
Even people with cognitive disabilities are becoming lost due to the
absence of navigation elements at web sites.
Moreover, people with hearing disabilities cannot access the content of
audio streaming and video clips posted on the Internet due to the absence of
captioning.
The digital divide in web
page transactions and the Internet environment has bred a host of additional
problems for people with disabilities. For
example, commercial web-authoring applications lack access tool kits for
webmasters to correct accessible web design problems.
In fact, many current web-authoring tools on the market make it
extremely difficult to even design an accessible web page.
The scarcity of tools also contributes to the lack of education among
programmers and web authors on why and how to code an accessible web page.
And if the webmaster herself is a person with a disability, she will
also find a lack of web authoring applications that she can utilize.
This is especially true for webmasters with mobility disabilities
requiring voice, eye tracking or keyboard input/output features in web
authoring applications.
Whether the digital barrier
is the inaccessible design of Internet/Intranet web sites, Internet Service
Provider “portals,” incompatible browsers, or inaccessible web-based
platforms for on-line business, the trend is growing and must be addressed at
the infancy of the digital economy. Already,
exciting electronic and information technology features are emerging in the
areas of information appliances, real-time conference participation,
audio-streaming, telephone voice browsers, search engines, news groups, chat
rooms and 3-D imaging. Unless
functionality solutions for accessibility are addressed today, the state of
the digital divide tomorrow may be impossible to overcome.
Return
to the Table of Contents
Consider the comments of
Lawrence Lessig in his article on “Cyber-Governance”:
We
have no problem of governance in cyberspace.
We have a problem with governance.
There isn’t a special set of dilemmas that cyberspace will present;
there are just the familiar dilemmas that modern governance confronts-
familiar problems in a new place . . . . Cyberspace is that space constituted
by code- by software and hardware that together make up the architectures that
cyberspace is . . . . These architectures are many; the values that they
imbed- privacy, anonymity, access, control- are varied; and hence a choice
about these architectures is a choice about these values.
Yet we are at a time when we are strangely disabled from making choices
about these architectures.[10]
If it is true that we are disabled from making smart choices about cyberspace
architectures, then inaccessible web design is certainly evidence of this
problem. Yet, the evolution of our disability rights laws have resulted in the
understanding that access to information and communication is a civil right for
people with disabilities. Some of the current federal statutes and their
implementing regulations that protect this civil right include:
1. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [11]
2. Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[12]
3. Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986[13]
4. Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (Tech Act)[14]
5. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)[15]
6. Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990[16]
7. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA)[17]
8. Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Act[18]
9. Telecommunications Act of 1996[19]
10. Section 121 of the U.S. Copyright Law[20]
11. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act[21]
Although each of these
statutes, their amendments and regulations deserve an extended discussion as
to the civil right protections impacting electronic and information
technology, this paper is limited to highlighting some of the significant
legal issues that can inform our policy impacting people with disabilities.
ADA Legal Challenges
First, as of this
writing there have been no legal challenges under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) on the issue of inaccessible web pages and the
Internet environment. Nevertheless,
attention is being paid to the application of the ADA to inaccessible web
design because of the scope and impact of this statute protecting people with
disabilities from discrimination in their access to employment and commerce.
As discussed below, the
ADA requirements for “effective communication” and the provision of
“auxiliary aids and services” and “reasonable accommodations” apply to
the computer and Internet environment. Because
of the ongoing duty to remove barriers, it is not enough to respond on an
ad-hoc basis to individual requests for accommodation.
There is an affirmative duty to develop a comprehensive policy
involving input from the community of people with disabilities.
New technology must either improve accessibility or ensure
compatibility with existing access design functions.
In addition, the ADA also provides for a “new generation of civil
rights laws in which Congress assigned Federal agencies not only the duty to
enforce, but also to inform all parties (persons with disabilities and covered
entities) of their responsibilities and rights under the law.”[22]
Nevertheless, as
discussed in this author’s article “Applying the ADA to the Internet:
A Web Accessibility Standard,”[23]
the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) has issued only one policy ruling
letter concerning web site accessibility dated September 9, 1996 (hereinafter
USDOJ Letter).[24]
In fact, the USDOJ has been faulted for failing to provide proactive
guidance on web site accessibility.[25]
But the USDOJ Letter does reiterate the ADA requirement that covered
entities must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary
to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, unless
doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the program or service or
in an undue burden.[26]
Under the rationale of
“effective communication,” the USDOJ Letter states that ADA Titles II and
III require state and local governments and the business sector to provide
effective communication whenever they communicate through the Internet.
The effective communication rule applies to covered entities using the
Internet for communication regarding their programs, goods or services since
they must be prepared to offer those communications via an accessible medium.
Specifically addressing the
needs of people with visual disabilities, the USDOJ Letter points out that
providing a text format rather than a graphical format assures accessibility
to the Internet for individuals using screen readers.
Without special coding a text browser will only display the word
“image” when it reads a graphic image.
Moreover, if the graphic is essential to navigating the site (such as a
navigational button or arrow) or if it imparts vital information (such as a
table or image map) the user can get stuck and not be able to move or
understand the information provided.
Legal challenges are
anticipated[27]
amid the growing avalanche of ADA administrative complaint filings that have
yet to reach the courts. In fact, a number of web site complaints have quietly
settled with the covered entities promising to retrofit their web sites for
accessible design. Examples of
the types of ADA complaints anticipated include:
employees requiring accessible intranet/internet environment as a
reasonable accommodation under ADA Title I; employees and students requiring
access to long-distance learning courses; citizens requiring access to
internet kiosks for voting or participating in business or governmental
transactions; or consumers requiring access to electronic textbooks and the
web-based environment.
Emerging Legal Requirements for Internet Accessibility
Section 508:
Electronic and Information Technology
The newly revised Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[28]
now imposes strict accessibility requirements for electronic and information
technology developed, maintained, procured, or used by federal agencies.
As part of the Section 508 implementation effort, on April 2, 1999
Attorney General Janet Reno directed that all federal agencies conduct
self-evaluations of their electronic and information technology and report by
June 15, 1999 the extent to which their electronic and information technology
is accessible to people with disabilities.[29]
This Section 508 compliance package includes a number of accessibility
checklists for software, web page, information technology machines, (ITM) and
information technology (IT) equipment as well as a Resource Guide.[30]
The definition of
electronic and information technology under Section 508 includes: computers,
hardware, software, web pages, facsimile machines, copiers, telephones and
other equipment used for transmitting, receiving, using or storing
information.[31]
It is expected that by February 7, 2000 the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) will issue standards
that will define what is meant by electronic and information technology and
will set forth the technical and functional performance criteria for
accessibility implementation.[32]
U.S. Department of Education, Office
for Civil Rights
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR
Lastly, for the last four
years there have been significant legal developments coming out of the U.S.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, in their OCR Letters of
Resolution against higher education institutions in the State of California.
Access to the learning
environment is a critical, front-line issue requiring an immediate resolution.
For example, library reference services are being transformed by the
efficiency of Internet access to information systems and search engines.
Professors are teaching long-distance learning courses over the
Internet and even if a student is physically in class, homework assignments
and resources are being posted on classroom web pages.
Yet, even if a library terminal has assistive computer technology
installed for students or visitors with disabilities, Internet research is not
possible with inaccessible web page design.
The following is a summary
of four selected California OCR Letters of Resolution impacting Internet
accessibility:
1.
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-95-2206 (January 25, 1996): http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/sjsu.htm
Student complaint that a university failed to provide equivalent access
to the Internet. Student with a
visual disability was required to make appointments with personal reader
attendants as the exclusive mechanism for access to the Internet.
The University also failed to complete the “Self-Evaluation Plan”
as required by ADA Title II. According
to the finding:
The
issue is not whether the student with the disability is merely provided
access, but the issue is rather the extent to which the communication is
actually as effective as that provided to others.
Title II [of the ADA] also strongly affirms the important role that
computer technology is expected to play as an auxiliary aid by which
communication is made effective for persons with disabilities.
OCR notes that the “information superhighway” is fast becoming a
fundamental tool in post-secondary research.[33]
2.
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-97-2002 (April 7, 1997):
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/csula.htm
Student complaint that a university failed to provide access to library
resources, campus publications, open computer laboratories, training on
adaptive computer technology and computer test-taking.
According to the finding:
Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II) requires a public college
to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with persons with
disabilities “are as effective as communications with others” [28 C.F.R.
§ 35.160(a)]. OCR has repeatedly
held that the term “communication” in this context means the transfer of
information, including (but not limited to) the verbal presentation of a
lecturer, the printed text of a book, and the resources of the Internet.
Title II further states that, in determining what type of auxiliary aid
and service is necessary, a public college shall give primary consideration to
the requests of the individual with a disability [28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2)].[34]
In further clarifying what
is meant by “effective communication,” OCR held that the three basic
components of effective communication are:
“timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision
in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the
abilities of the individual with the disability.”[35]
OCR also points out that
the courts have held that a public entity violates its obligations under the
ADA when it only responds on an ad-hoc basis to individual requests for
accommodation. There is an
affirmative duty to develop a comprehensive policy in advance of any request
for auxiliary aids or services. See Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 857 F.
Supp. 800 (D.Kan. 1994)[36]
Moreover, according to OCR “[a] recognized good practice in
establishing such a comprehensive policy is to consult with the disability
community, especially those members most likely to request accommodations.”[37]
Of particular interest is
the analogy OCR draws between the rationale for bringing an existing building
up to code for access and the purchase of new technology for information
systems. For example, buildings
built prior to access laws are governed by “program access” requirements
and remodeling triggers the requirement to install certain accessible
architectural features.
Similarly, the effective
communication requirement according to OCR imposes a duty to solve barriers to
information access that the entity’s purchasing choices create.
Whenever existing technology is “upgraded” by a new technology
feature, it is important to ensure that the new technology either improves
accessibility or is compatible with existing assistive computer technology.[38]
For example, web-authoring software programs that erect barriers in
their coding of web pages fall under this scrutiny.
Lastly, OCR states that
when an entity selects software programs and/or hardware equipment not
adaptable for people with disabilities, “the subsequent substantial expense
of providing access is not generally regarded as an undue burden when such
cost could have been significantly reduced by considering the issue of
accessibility at the time of the initial selection.”[39]
Therefore all technology improvements must take into account the
removal of barriers and ensure that new barriers to access do not occur.
Covered entities preparing to retrofit their web sites need to be aware
of this requirement.
3.
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-97-6001 (January 22, 1998): http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/ocrsurltr.html.
OCR Statewide compliance review under Title II of the ADA and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The
purpose of the review and subsequent OCR Report was to assess how 106
California Community Colleges meet their obligations to students with visual
disabilities in providing access to print and electronic information. In
OCR’s letter dated January 22, 1998,[40]
the comprehensive review suggested nine strategies to address:
- Cost-effective approach to
purchasing adaptive technology
- Adaptive technology training
- Access guidelines for distance
learning and campus web pages as well as tools for training faculty and staff
- Inclusive language in the
distribution of standard technology grants/funds addressing college
responsibility to ensure technology access and compatible upgrades
- Print materials translated into
alternate formats such as electronic text and Braille
- Central registry of textbooks in
alternative formats
- Library technology initiatives for
access to both students and patrons with disabilities
- Follow-up to OCR survey initiated
in 9/18/96 to determine compliance progress
- Annual reviews of Disabled Student
Programs and Services to include attention to the removal of barriers in
electronic technology
The Community College
Chancellor has agreed to implement OCR’s recommendations to help the
colleges meet their obligations under the ADA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.[41]
Whereas the assistive computer technology training, support and
services for students with disabilities was once limited to staff exclusively
working with the Office of Disabled Student Programs, a systemic plan is now
required for mainstreaming this knowledge campus-wide:
“Technology
access, like architectural access, must be addressed institutionally as an
integral part of the planning process.” [42]
Just as the removal of
architectural barriers requires a plan for implementation, the removal of
technological or digital barriers in programs and services requires a
comprehensive institutional plan impacting every campus office.
4.
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-99-2041 (April 20, 1999): http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/lbeach.htm.
Student complaint that the university failed to provide access to the
College of Business curriculum and other educational programs, including
computer laboratories and classes in the College of Business.
OCR noted that although the academic community has heavily relied upon
centralized units on campus to house and maintain assistive computer
technology:
[S]uch
sole reliance upon a single centralized location (when not limited to adaptive
technology training, but instead used for instructing disabled students in
course subject matter) may run counter to the strong philosophy embodied in
Title II and Section 504 regarding the importance of fully integrating
students with disabilities into the mainstream educational program, unless
such services cannot be otherwise effectively provided [see 34 C.F.R. §
104.4(b)(iv); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iv)] .
Thus, OCR assumes in most cases computer access will be effectively
provided to the student with the disability in an educational setting with his
or her nondisabled peers and classmates at the various computer laboratory
sites scattered throughout the campus.[43]
As a result, the
mainstreaming of students with disabilities has created the need for
appropriate technology tools for access to the learning environment.
And as students with disabilities move into the workforce as employees,
employers or consumers, accessible web design and an accessible internet
platform remains a significant issue to be addressed in the digital economy.
In other words, overcoming barriers in the digital economy requires
appropriate policies, technology tools and education for accessible system
design and implementation.
Return
to the Table of Contents
We have seen how people
with disabilities are locked out of the digital economy web environment due to
the lack of accessible design. The digital divide will continue to expand if
this issue is not addressed in our research, education and outreach.
As the rapid development of new web applications continues, it is
necessary to ensure that new barriers are not erected to effective
communication and commerce.
This section briefly
highlights some of the additional problems currently expanding the digital
divide: Internet Services
Providers, Internet voting, accessible system design, Internet kiosks, smart
cards, electronic textbooks, long-distance learning, and consumer household
appliances.
Internet Service Providers
According to a recent study by the
American Foundation for the Blind, there are significant accessibility issues
to consider when a consumer determines whether or not to utilize on-line
services or Internet Service Providers. Although
America Online is one of the most popular services for accessing the Internet,
it is currently not a good choice for consumers who are blind.
Expert screen reader users find it extremely difficult to navigate
because of its nonstandard controls (buttons and icons) and lack of keyboard
commands.
The study also examined CompuServe and
concluded that although it was more usable than America Online, its forums and
chat rooms present accessibility problems.
The report concluded that the best solution for Internet access for
people who are blind is an Internet service provider where the user can choose
the most accessible E-mail program and Web browser for the screen reader being
utilized.[44]
Internet Voting
As government agencies look to the
Internet as an efficient way to conduct elections, it is important to ensure
that web pages utilized for voting do not contain accessibility barriers.
For example, currently a number of Fortune 500 companies provide
Internet voting as an option for shareholder participation at annual or
special business meetings and are unaware that there are accessibility
barriers at their web sites. This
problem should be a reminder for governments that Internet voting for local,
state or national elections requires accessible web design to prevent the
disfranchisement of people with disabilities.
Accessible System Design
As governmental entities
and businesses employ policies to satisfy ADA Title II or ADA Title I
requirements, a systemic review similar to the Year 2K problem should be
underway to remove accessible system design barriers impacting employees and
consumers. For example, designers
of statewide or agency computer systems should be addressing the impact of
their design ‘upgrade’ on current employees using assistive computer
technology. Employees with
disabilities should not be suddenly losing their ability to do their job
because of this lack of planning.
Even if a vendor has a
package with built-in accessibility features, it is important that people with
disabilities are involved in the development of the product as well as in the
procurement of the product. By
including this knowledge on the team, system planning can anticipate and
address compatibility, accessibility and implementation issues. Examples of
some of the problematic issues include: the
transfer of human resources/payroll/product inventory databases to particular
intranet environment formats not friendly to screenreader access or keyboard
navigation; the intranet ‘upgrade’ to database search engine capability
when the search engine itself is not accessible to screenreaders; or the
inaccessible design of a web-based vendor platform for conducting on-line
business. Research is needed on
how to best incorporate difference and choice to address this growing problem.
The author has received numerous calls from state and business entities
across the nation seeking solutions after a system upgrade “bumped” an
employee from the workplace.
Internet Kiosks
Internet kiosks and
information technology machines (ITM) are appearing in the marketplace without
ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities.
Whether the barrier is a touch screen feature or other inaccessible
element, specific guidelines are needed for the industry to address functional
requirements. The Access Board
has been researching the accessibility of ITM’s and a draft copy of their
final report can be accessed from their web site at http://www.access-board.gov
.
Smart Cards
Smart cards, whether they are in the shape of credit cards, keys or rings,
or demand vision to access digital displays of random password entry numbers
for operation, require accessible design considerations.
As businesses and governmental agencies increase their investment in
these products for security or employee identification reasons, the number of
consumers and employees impacted by the lack of accessible design will
increase. Solutions are needed to
address this problem.
Electronic Textbooks
Currently the State of
Texas Education Code[45]
requires the Texas Education Agency to develop a study project to determine
the costs and benefits of using computer networks, including the Internet in
public schools. The issues to be
studied include electronic delivery of textbooks and supplement updates as
well as the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of producing electronic
textbooks for students with disabilities.
In response to this mandate, the Texas Education Agency issued their
report in February 1999 entitled, Report on the Computer Network Study
Project.[46]
This comprehensive report includes the following recommendations:
- Establish an advisory committee to develop guidelines for designing
accessible, interactive electronic instructional materials including
simulations.
- Fund a study of the costs for developing accessible electronic
textbooks[47]
as well as two demonstration projects for developing two interactive
electronic textbooks: one
electronic textbook to be CD-ROM-based that students with disabilities can use
without assistive technology devices; the other an interactive
accessible Internet-based or Intranet-based textbook that students with
disabilities can use without assistive technology devices.
- Require beginning in the year 2003 all CD-ROM textbooks or materials
adopted by the State Board of Education comply with the basic accessibility
requirements contained in the report.
- Require all Internet-based or Intranet-based textbooks adopted by the State Board of
Education comply with the accessibility guidelines of the World Wide Web
Consortium.
- Require that all materials purchased by Texas public schools for preparing students to take standardized
and college entrance examinations be accessible to students with disabilities.
Likewise, in the State of California, Assembly Bill 422[48]
requires publishers of textbooks and instructional materials to provide an
electronic version for people with disabilities if the material is required as
part of a course or study in a community college, the California State
University or the University of California.
A second bill, Assembly Bill 609[49],
addresses the needs of grades kindergarten through twelve and includes the
requirement that publishers of instructional materials provide the state, at
no cost, computer files or electronic versions of the instructional material.
Lastly, a third bill, Assembly Bill 395[50],
provides conformity with the IDEA for special education programs and requires
publishers and manufacturers to provide instructional materials to the state
in electronic format compatible with Braille translation and speech synthesis
software.
The efforts in Texas and California are timely and if
successful, then another barrier in the digital divide will fall.
Long Distance Learning
The growth of the Internet
has created virtual universities and on-line courses that have not been
designed to allow people with disabilities to participate.
Whether or not these on-line courses are being taken by students or by
employees, inaccessible design is a barrier.
As mentioned earlier, the January 22, 1998 California Community OCR
Findings identified this problem:
California Community Colleges, individually and
collectively as part of the California Virtual University, are rapidly
developing their capacity to deliver educational programs to offsite students
through technology. Little
attention is being given to ensure that these distance learning programs are
accessible to students with disabilities, especially students with visual
impairments.[51]
The California Community
Colleges currently have an enrollment of 4.1 million students and have
responded by establishing a Distance Education Accessibility Work Group to
develop Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines.
The draft guidelines are currently under review by a variety of groups
within the system including the Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges, the general Distance Education Technology Advisory Committee, the
Distance Education Accessibility Work Group, DSPS Regional Coordinators, and
the High Tech Center Training Unit Advisory Committee.
It is expected that once feedback is received and incorporated, the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges will issue final guidelines.[52]
As of the writing of this
paper, the California Community College long distance learning guidelines will
require all newly developed or acquired distance education curricula and
instructional materials to be accessible for people with disabilities.
In addition, as part of the six year curriculum review cycle for
accreditation, all existing curricula and instructional materials are to be
reviewed and revised, if necessary, to provide accessibility.[53]
Household Appliances
Digital components with touch screen or flat screen
displays are bringing common household appliances into the digital age.
Unfortunately, consumers with disabilities are finding they cannot use
these appliances. Whereas
household appliance switches and knob settings can be Brailled so that people
with visual disabilities can operate the appliances, this solution is not
available for appliances utilizing digital operational displays.
Some of the common household appliances converting to a digital
operation display include stoves, microwaves, dishwashing machines, and
clothes washing/drying machines.
Return
to the Table of Contents
This section highlights two particular efforts underway to address the
problems of barriers in web page design and the Internet environment:
City of San Jose, California, web accessibility effort and the World
Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative.
It also highlights some of the emerging benefits that extend beyond the
community of people with disabilities.
City of San Jose Web Page Disability Access Design Standard
As the ADA Compliance
Officer for the City of San Jose, the author participated on an Internet Home
Page Team from October 1995 through June 1996.
Our team purpose statement was “to lay a foundation including the
establishment of standards, goals and guidelines for the City of San Jose’s
Internet World Wide Web Pages.” Of
particular concern was the filing of an ADA administrative complaint against
the City of San Jose by a blind City Commissioner.
The Commissioner complained that she was unable to access City Council
documents as part of her work in advising City Council because the documents
were posted in an inaccessible format, ie. portable document format (pdf).
By June 1996, the City of
San Jose Web Page Disability Access Design Standard was developed in response
to the monitoring of ADA Internet complaints and the need to incorporate City
ADA implementation policies.[54]
By integrating the requirements of the ADA and applying Universal
design principles, we have
ensured the widest public access to City electronic government information and
services.[55]
Currently these standards are being incorporated into our web site and
are subject to change as technology advances to solve digital barriers and
integrate access tool kits in web-authoring tools.
Just as curbcuts enable
people using wheelchairs to navigate our City streets, “electronic curbcuts”[56]
enable people with disabilities to navigate the digital economy. There are
seven basic requirements in the City of San Jose minimum accessible web design
standard:[57]
1.
Provide an Access Instruction Page for Visitors (includes email
hyperlink for visitors to communicate problems with web page accessibility)[58]
2.
Provide support for text browsers[59]
3.
Attach “Alt” tags to graphic images so that screenreaders can
identify the graphic[60]
4.
Hyperlink photographs with descriptive text “D”[61]
5.
Caption all audio and video clips by using “CC” hyperlinks[62]
6.
Provide alternative mechanism for on-line forms (such as email or
voice/TTY phone numbers)[63]
7.
Avoid access barriers such as the posting of documents in PDF, table,
newspaper or frame format or requiring visitors to download software.
If posting in PDF, the HTML text or ASCII file must also be posted.[64]
As a result of our web
accessibility effort,[65]
the City of San Jose was awarded the League of California Cities Helen Putnam
Grand Prize for Excellence[66]
as well as recognition as a “best practices” model by the United States
General Services Administration Center for Information Technology
Accommodation.[67]
The author’s effort also led to being named to the “Top 25 Women on
the Web” by Webgrrls International.[68]
World Wide Web Consortium
Web Accessibility Initiative
On May 5, 1999 the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced the release of the "Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"[69]
specification as a W3C Recommendation. This
significant development provides a stable specification that has been reviewed
and recommended by the W3C Membership as a tool for making web sites
accessible. As Tim Berners-Lee,
W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web aptly states:
“The power of the Web is in its universality.
Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”[70]
The W3C Recommendation is
evidence of the W3C commitment to lead the way to full participation on the
Web for everyone and is an important step since the launch of the Web
Accessibility Initiative (WAI) April 1997 in the County of Santa Clara,
California.[71]
The W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI) recognizes the problem of barriers on the Web for people with
disabilities and is committed to pursuing solutions through five primary
activities:
The WAI technical activity
addresses technology, guidelines and tools coordinated through the
International Program Office. For
example, in the technology arena, WAI has identified the following areas for
accessibility needs: HTML, Style
Sheets, Multimedia, MathML, DOM, XML, Graphics, Mobile Access,
Internationalization. Currently
there is a Protocols and Formats Working Group as well as an HTML/CSS Review
Working Group.
In the area of web
accessibility guidelines critical for web site development and web application
development, the WAI is coordinating page authoring guidelines[74]
for accessible web sites; user agent guidelines,[75]
such as browsers and multimedia players; and authoring tool guidelines,[76]
such as editors and site management tools.
Currently there is a Web Content Guidelines Working Group, a User Agent
Guidelines Working Group and an Authoring Tools Guidelines Working Group.[77]
Lastly, in the area of
tools to facilitate web accessibility, the WAI is coordinating an effort to
develop tools for evaluation, repair and proxy conversions.
Currently there is an Evaluation and Repair Interest Group and an
Evaluation and Repair Working Group.[78]
The WAI International
Program Office focuses on education and outreach and is separately funded by
W3C Member activities, governments and corporations.
For example, sponsors include the U.S. National Science Foundation,
U.S. Department of Education National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research, European Commission’s TIDE Programme under
Directorate Generale XIII, Microsoft Corporation, IBM, Lotus Development
Corporation and NCR.[79]
Return
to the Table of Contents
As stated in a
recent report by the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee:
As
we have the opportunity to use information technology to strengthen our
societal institutions, we must understand the potential pitfalls, and the
safeguards we must put in place to achieve both a free and fair flow of
information.[80]
Overcoming the
digital divide for people with disabilities requires a “free and fair flow
of information” safeguarded by civil rights.
Civil rights principles should guide policymakers in the application of
technology in the emerging digital economy.
Although information technology changes; civil rights principles do
not.[81]
Already our
civil rights statutes require government to consult the community of people
with disabilities whenever policies, services or programs impact their
community. There has also been a significant shift to include people with
disabilities in the design, research and development of assistive technology.[82]
In More Than
Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen
Interfaces to the Nation’s Information Infrastructure,[83]
three recommendations are offered for federal research that are supported by
the author of this White Paper:
1. Break away from 1960s technologies and paradigms with a research agenda
acknowledging that the “human-machine interface is more than screen deep and
should consider every aspect of a person’s experience in using computing and
communications.”[84]
2. Invest in the research required to provide the component subsystems
needed for every-citizen interfaces with the highest priority being the
determination of citizens’ needs.[85]
3. Encourage research on systems-level design and development of
human-machine interfaces that support multiperson, multimachine groups as well
as individuals.[86]
In addition, overcoming the
digital divide also requires collaboration in open source technologies[87]
because civil rights principles reinforce the greater value of the
functionality returned through the collaboration.[88]
Yet, according to Shapiro and Varian, there is the problem that
Open
standards are prone to “splintering,” or “fragmentation.”
Splintering of a standard refers to the emergence of multiple,
incompatible versions of a standardized technology. . . .Open standards can
also be “hijacked” by companies seeking to extend them in proprietary
directions, and thus in time gain control over the installed base.
Microsoft has been accused of trying to extend both Java and HTML in
proprietary directions.[89]
Perhaps research is needed
on how to best manage open standards where civil right protections are
afforded the community of people with disabilities in their access to
technology. As suggested by
O’Reilly, an area for future study is “where the ideal boundary ought to
be between a core product controlled by a single individual or small team, and
the input of the user community.”[90]
Lastly, civil rights
principles should guide researchers as the federal government addresses the
ten critical “National Challenge Transformations” identified by the
President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee:
These
information technology transformations will affect how we communicate,[91]
how we store and access information,[92]
how we become healthier and receive proper medical care,[93]
how we learn,[94]
how we conduct business,[95]
how we work,[96]
how we design and build things,[97]
how we conduct research,[98]
how we sustain a livable environment,[99]
and how we manage our government in the next millennium.[100]
As our national research
agenda addresses these critical issues, this White Paper calls for fairness
and equity and echoes the view of the National Council on Disability[101]
that
If
equal access to multimedia for people with disabilities is to become a
reality, knowledge and awareness will have to be developed across all areas.[102]
A robust and strong digital
economy requires the removal of barriers through the deployment of accessible
design elements in our computer, information technology and communications.
By directing our research and policy directives to address these
problems, we will overcome the digital divide and ensure full participation in
the global digital economy.
Return
to the Table of Contents
[2]
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, “Who Needs
Web Site Accessibility?” The
Research Exchange 3, no. 3 (1998): 1-5.
http://www.ncddr.org/researchexchange/
According to this article, estimates of the total number of
Americans vary according to the criteria used.
The figure of 43 million was stated in the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994)).
Another figure of 36.1 million was proposed by the Disability
Statistics Rehabilitation Research and Training Center based on data from
the 1990 National Health Interview Survey and additional sources.
The National Council on Disability Bulletin (September 1997)
cited the figure of 54 million.
[4]
Cynthia D. Waddell, “Applying the ADA to the Internet:
A Web Accessibility Standard,” presented at the American Bar
Association national summit on disability law and policy:
In Pursuit-A Blueprint for Disability Law and Policy, June
17, 1998 (hereinafter cited as Waddell, “Applying the ADA to the
Internet”) http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/weblaw1.htm
[6]
See Leslie M. Campbell and Cynthia D. Waddell, “Electronic
Curbcuts: How to Build an
Accessible Web Site,” CAPED Communiqué, (California Association
on Postsecondary Education and Disability, Spring 1997) (hereinafter cited
as Campbell and Waddell, “Electronic Curbcuts”)
http://www.prodworks.com/ilf/w5bcw.htm
[8]
National Council on Disability, “Access to Multimedia Technology by
People with Sensory Disabilities,” (Washington, DC:
National Council on Disability, March 13, 1998), p. 52 (hereinafter
cited as NCD, “Access to Multimedia Technology”) http://www.ncd.gov/publications/sensory.html
[9]
Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian, Information Rules:
A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, (Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard
Business School Press, 1999), p. 6. (hereinafter cited as Shapiro and
Varian, Information Rules) http://inforules.com
[10]
Lessig, Lawrence, “Cyber-Governance,” CPSR Newsletter - Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility 16, no. 4, (Fall, 1998) pp.
1,4.
[11]
Pub. L. No. 93-112 § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29
U.S.C. § 794 (1994). Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 mandates reasonable accommodation and least restrictive
environments in federally funded employment and higher education; requires
assistive technology and services to people with disabilities.
[12]
Section 508 was originally added to the Rehabilitation Act in 1986.
In 1998 Section 508 was revised under the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998)(codified at 29 U.S.C.
§ 798). The revision expands
and strengthens the technology access requirements in Section 508.
Sec. 408(b), § 508, 112 Stat. at 1203-06.
Section 508 applies to Federal departments and agencies and does
not apply to recipients of Federal funds.
However, states receiving Federal funds under the Tech Act are
required to comply with Section 508.
The text of Section 508 can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508
[13]
Pub. L. No. 99-506, 100 Stat. 1807 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§
716-717, 794d, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-7 (1994) requiring states to
include assistive technology services in plans for clients with
disabilities and mandates equal access to all electronic equipment in
federal workplaces.
[14]
Pub. L. No. 100-407, 102 Stat. 1044 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §
2201-2288 (Supp. 1996)) Congress amended this statute in 1994:
Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities
Amerndments of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-218, 108 Stat. 50 (Supp. II
1996)(codified in 29 U.S.C. § 2201 note and in various sections of 29 U.
S.C.) It is interesting to note that the statute recognized a growing
digital divide: “Many
individuals with disabilities cannot access existing telecommunications
and information technologies and are at risk of not being able to access
developing technologies. The
failure of Federal and State governments, hardware manufacturers, software
designers, information systems managers, and telecommunications service
providers to account for the specific needs of individuals with
disabilities results in the exclusion of such individuals from the use of
telecommunications and information technologies and results in unnecessary
costs associated with the retrofitting of devices and product services.”
29 U.S.C. § 2201(a)(7)(Supp.II 1996).
[15]
Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-12213 (1994). The ADA
extends sections 503, 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to all
qualified individuals with disabilities.
[16]
Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1103(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 1400
(1994)) extending assistive technology devices and services definition to
education.
[17]
Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§
1401-1461 (1994)) extending reasonable accommodation and least restrictive
environment provision of the Rehabilitation Act to ages five through
twenty-one in education; provides for assistive technology to play a
significant role in access to educational programs.
[18]
Pub. L. No. 99-457, 100 Stat. 1145 (1986)(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1471-1485 (1994)) extending EAHC to infants and children up to five
years and expanding provisions on education-related assistive technology.
[19]
Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996) Two provisions of the Telecommunications Act address
specific access needs for people with disabilities:
Sections 255 and 713. Section
255 requires all manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and
providers of telecommunications services to ensure that equipment and
services are accessible, if readily achievable.
Section 713 seeks to ensure that video services are accessible to
people with hearing and speech disabilities.
For example, closed captioning and video description provisions are
mechanisms for providing accessibility.
The Access Board guidelines for compliance with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 are found at
http://www.access-board.gov/rules/telfinl2.htm
[20]
Pub. L. No. 104-107, 110 Stat. 2394, 2416 (Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1997, adding new section 121 to Title 17 U.S. Code)
providing exemption from copyright infringement for an authorized entity
to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords in specialized
formats exclusively for use by blind or other people with disabilities.
[21]
Pub. L. No. 105-17 Recently re-authorized and strengthened as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
[22]
United States Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local
Governments Comply with the ADA: An
Assessment of How the United States Department of Justice Is Enforcing
Title II, Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
(Washington, DC: U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, September 1998) pp. 10-11(hereinafter cited as
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local Governments
Comply with the ADA) http://www.usccr.gov/
[24]
Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Department
of Justice, letter to Tom Harkin, U. S. Senate, re application of the ADA
to “web pages” on the Internet, September 9, 1996, 10 NDLR ¶ 240.
[25]
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping
State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA, p.111.
[26]
See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303; 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
[27]
Waddell, Cynthia D. and Kevin Thomason, “Is Your Site ADA-Compliant? or
a Lawsuit-in-Waiting?”, The Internet Lawyer, (New York:
GoAhead Productions, November 1998) no. 4.11 http://www.internetlawyer.com
[28]
See Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936
(1998).
[29]April
2, 1999 Memorandum from Attorney General Janet Reno to Heads of All
Federal Agencies, Subject: Electronic
and Information Technology (hereinafter cited as Attorney General Reno
Memo) http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/memohead.html
[32]
As part of the rulemaking process, the Access Board has convened the
EITAAC (Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee) to
advise the Board as it develops the standards.
http://www.access-board.gov/
[40]
January 22, 1998 letter from Stefan Rosenzweig, Regional Director, U.S.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights to Thomas J. Naussbaum,
Chancellor, California Community Colleges (hereinafter cited as OCR Letter
dated 1/22/98) http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/ocrsurltr.html
[41]
See March 9, 1999 letter from Ralph Black, General Counsel for the
California Community Colleges to Paul Grossman, Chief Regional Attorney,
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights re Case Docket No
09-97-6001 (hereinafter cited as OCR Letter dated 3/9/99).
[43]
OCR Letter Docket No. 09-99-2041 dated April 20, 1999 from Robert E.
Scott, Team Leader, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education,
p. 2.
[44]
Crista L. Carl and Jay D. Leventhal, “Accessing On-Line Services with
Synthetic Speech: America
Online, CompuServe, and Internet Service Providers,” Journal of
Visual Impairment & Blindness, (New York: American Foundation for
the Blind,1998) 92, no. 8, pp. 545-551.
[45]
Section 32.037 of the Texas Education Code was legislated by Senate Bill
294 and enacted by the 75th Texas Legislature.
[47]
The Texas Education Code defines electronic textbook as “computer
software, interactive videodisc, magnetic media, CD-ROM, computer
courseware, online services, an electronic medium, or other means of
conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the
learning process through electronic means.”
Section 31.001(1). This
definition does not address the accessibility issues of electronic
textbook content and the method of presentation of that content.
[52]
OCR Letter dated 3/9/99, p. 4.
[55]
See Waddell, “Applying the ADA to the Internet” |
