Section 508 Comments

In the Matter of
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
36 CFR Part 1194
Docket No. 2000-01

Office of Technical and Information Services
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111
section508nprm@access-board.gov

Comments of Trace R & D Center
June 8, 2000
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor, Industrial Engineering
Director Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin - Madison
2107 Engineering Centers Bldg.
1550 Engineering Dr.
Madison, WI 53706

These comments are submitted by the Trace Research and Development Center, a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the US Dept of Education. The core focus of the Trace Center RERC is on access to information technologies. The Trace Center is also part of a joint RERC with Gallaudet University on Access to Telecommunications.

The Trace Center has worked in the area of disability access to standard information and telecommunication systems for the last twenty years. Early work focused on the development of access features (e.g., StickyKeys, MouseKeys), and work with Microsoft, Apple Computer, IBM, and others to help them incorporate the features in their standard operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS, etc.). Recent work has included the development of a set of techniques for cross-disability access (called "EZ Access"), the development of a reference design to illustrate how a cell phone could be compliant with the FCC's accessibility regulations at a reasonable cost using today's technology, and co-authorship of the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

The opinions stated herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies of the Trace Center or the University of Wisconsin.

We want to compliment the Access Board's work done so far on the guidelines. Although the task of creating the 508 standards appears to be complex, it is even harder when you actually try to sit down and figure out how to create a set of rules that will be effective today, make sense tomorrow and be applied across a very wide and continually changing range of technologies. We apologize for being late in turning in the comments, but it took much longer than we anticipated to formulate solutions to address the issues we identified without creating new problems.

These represented a major step forward in the guidelines. These changes also help to highlight key issues that needed to be addressed.

In reviewing the guidelines, we identified a number of issues. Some of these originated with the Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC)document, while others are side effects of the improvements that were made. Some of these problems only became obvious recently as it became clearer how these guidelines need to be implemented within the federal procurement process and the constraints that this process places on the government. These, in turn, effect requirements on the accessibility standards themselves.

Organization of These Comments

Part 1 - Summary of Key Issues

1. An over-generalization and under-specification of the (important) compatibility enhancement that was made to the guidelines.

One of the major advances introduced by the Access Board was the addition of the "compatibility with assistive technology " concept to the guidelines. The use of assistive technology, particularly when it comes to personal workstation computers, is an important strategy for providing accessibility. In fact, for more complex applications, compatibility with a screen reader generally provides better accessibility than if each application were to build or attempt to build its own separate accessible interface. Although this may or may not be true in the future, it is certainly true today and should be allowed and encouraged as an access strategy.

This approach is not without precedent. Buildings today are constructed and considered accessible to people in wheelchairs if they are usable by the people with their wheelchairs. There is no attempt made to require that people with wheelchairs be able to access and use the buildings while leaving their wheelchairs at the door.

As currently written, however, there is no differentiation in NPRM between environments where assistive technology would be present and environments or products where it is not practical to assume that the users will have assistive technology available to them. A requirement is made for kiosks and Information Transaction Machines (ITMs) that assistive technology should not be required for use of this class of device. However, there are many other classes of devices where assistive technology may not be present. In such cases allowing products to comply with the requirements through compatibility with assistive technology would not provide any real accessibility. In addition, for some disability groups, even ITMs will not be reasonably accessible without the presence of some assistive technology. For example, access to ITMs by individuals who are deaf/blind has already been demonstrated using a device such as a BrailleLite or Braille Note. Soon the capability to remotely interact with devices using an assistive technology will be standard. Yet, it is unlikely that it would be practical to build braille displays into ATMs or to require that they be usable by individuals with both profound hearing and vision impairments without their assistive technology.

Other examples include personal computers used as building directories, for registration, for card catalogs in libraries and other applications where users are not allowed to load their own software onto the products, and where the screen reader that an individual is familiar with cannot be assumed to be on the product. In these cases, making software compatible with, for example, screen readers should not be equated with accessibility.

Thus compatibility is a very powerful and useful concept that needs to be applied more broadly to the guidelines. As it is currently worded however it will create situations where it is applied where it should not be, and other situations where it is not allowed where it should be allowed.

2. The deletion of any specific regulations for providing access for people who are blind to any E&IT other than personal computers and the deletion of any specific regulations for people who are deaf to any E&IT other than telecommunications.

In compiling the NPRM, the Access Board took both the component specific-guidelines and all the specific items out from under EITAAC's performance guidelines and used them to construct the general and component requirements in the NPRM. Two key specific requirements, however, were omitted in this process. Specifically:

a)The guideline requiring that visual information should be provided in auditory form and tactile when appropriate and

As a result, there are no specific requirements of any kind for providing access to E&IT overall for people who are deaf or people who are blind. There are extensive provisions for compatibility with assistive technology that would provide access for people who are blind to personal computers. There are also provisions allowing individuals who are deaf to use their assistive technologies with telecommunication products. However, E&IT is much broader than these two categories of devices. Although these categories have been two primary points of concern in the past, there are many more individuals with both types of disabilities who will be facing many additional barriers with other devices in the workplace.

Relying on the functional performance guidelines alone is not sufficient. Although they would require companies to make all of their products accessible to these two groups, they provide no guidance as to how this might be done or what would be considered sufficient. They also provide nothing that would be measurable or verifiable. In the itemized review below and in our proposed reorganization, we explore this problem and propose strategies for addressing it.

3. An imbalance between focus on providing access to the way products have been designed in the past and the way they will be designed in the future, which will lead to problems in interpreting and applying the guidelines within the next 18 months and moving forward.

The current guidelines are very good at providing access to personal computers for people who are blind and access to telecommunications for people who are deaf or have hearing impairments. They also work well for products that are designed the way personal computers and devices have been designed to date. However, they do not do apply well against newer technologies that are evolving. In some cases, this will result in unduly constraining industry. In other cases it will cause it to be ambiguous as to what is required or what would be a sufficient solution to the problem/requirements.

4. Problems created with the specific wording of some of the provisions which make it difficult to meet the different access needs of personal workstations versus public access or shared E&IT.

In a number of places, the way the items are phrased makes an assumption as to whether the technology would be a personal device or a public device. Some aspects of this problem were touched upon in the discussion above. For example, the discussion of compatibility.

Whether something is a personal workstation device or is a shared or public device is a key issue for accessibility, particularly as information technologies are dispersed into the environment and both employees and the public will encounter them in places other than their personal workstations. In the NPRM, an assumption was made that access to public kiosks and ITMs should not require the use of assistive technologies. This exception does not apply to any other E&IT. This poses two problems

The first problem here is that "kiosks and ITMs" is too narrow a definition for public or shared technologies. The second problem is that, for some individuals, access to public systems will need to be via assistive technologies. (For example, individuals who are deaf/blind.) In addition, access to products in one's personal workstation area can often be done through assistive technologies today but may sometimes need to be done through built in features. As mentioned previously, some of these issues were not generated by the Access Board but were inherited from the EITAAC.

5. Issues surrounding definitions and use of terms for which definitions are not provided.

Finally, there are a number of issues around definitions. In some cases a key term is used but not defined. In other cases there are words that are used two different ways in the guidelines in ways that could cause confusion. In these cases the definition needs to be changed or the term used in the guidelines should be differentiated.

For example, "fundamental alteration" can be used as a defense for not following the guidelines. But that term is not defined anywhere in the regulations. It is important that this term be defined since people have widely varying interpretations of the term. It is generally agreed that adding access shouldn't change the basic operation of the product in a fundamental way. Some interpret this, however, to mean that you shouldn't add voice, for example, to a product even if it wouldn't significantly affect the cost, size, shape, or battery life. Since added functionality and added output modes are the essence of how you make products accessible, a clearer definition is needed or adding access features themselves could be considered fundamental alteration, even if it did not have any significant effect on the way the standard mode of operation or its size, weight etc. This is discussed in more detail in the line-by-line discussion.

Another example is the term "alternative modes." The word 'mode" is used both here when discussing alternative ways of getting information to consumers as part of the support process and also in performance guidelines where it says that "products must be accessible through at least one mode". In one case, fax is a legitimate alternative mode. In another case, faxing information is not. Some clarification is needed here.

The definition of "TTY" also needs an adjustment. As currently written, industry could be responsible for providing compatibility to a wide variety of different signal formats and communication and protocols.

This and other related problems can be addressed through changes to the wording of items as suggested below.

In recent discussions with those who will actually be implementing these guidelines (both in industry and the federal government), we have also learned a number of things that we were not aware of at the time of the original EITAAC meetings. In particular, the need for the guidelines to be more objective and either testable or verifiable has been brought to light. Many of us expected that once the guidelines were promulgated, simpler checklists and other similar mechanisms could be used at the purchasing level to make the process more concrete for individual technologies and to account for changes in what was available on the market. Subsequent discussions have indicated that, due to the nature of federal regulations and the FAR, it would not be possible for agencies or others to create checklists which could be used by either companies or purchasing agents to "interpret" the compliance with the guidelines unless such checklists went through the same process of approval as the guidelines themselves. No one is evidently empowered to create a document that would stand in front of the FAR regulations as an interpretation of compliance.

This has led to an understanding that we are likely to need guidelines that are as specific as possible. Procurement agents need something that is specific enough that they can have a chance of monitoring for compliance. Perhaps, more importantly, industry will have a set of criteria which are specific and objective enough that they can tell where they comply and have some confidence that others will concur. This is important to industry for two reasons. First, a vendor does not want to sign his or her name to something saying they comply only to be told later that their interpretation of compliance is not reasonable and that they, in fact, do not comply. Quality companies do not want to be left in such a situation. Secondly, vendors do not want to be in a position where they win a bid, but might later lose the contract due to a challenge by another company based on 508 compliance. Finally we have seen that industry is justifiably concerned about wasting a lot of time, effort, and money, wrestling with the question of what compliance means, instead of being able to focus those efforts on having their design team build the necessary flexibility and functionality into their products.

Specificity, where it can be done without compromising companies' options and ability to innovate, greatly facilitates companies ability to move forward confidently with their designs. It is also critical to any testability or verifiability measures by all parties.

At the same time that both government and industry need clarity in the guidelines, companies also need the guidelines to be as flexible as possible to accommodate innovation and to be able to address access in a fashion that best fits into the particular design parameters of their products. While industry is concerned about under-specification that leads to ambiguity, it is also very concerned about over-specification that might limit their ability to innovate and introduce new types, combinations and form factors (packages) for their products. They are also concerned about minimizing the manufacturing cost to incorporate the access features and any impact on the default or standard user interface and usability of their products.

In order to try to address these often-conflicting needs while still maintaining a set of guidelines which will provide meaningful access for people with disabilities, we found that one is unable to take either a "pure product design" guidelines or a "pure functional" requirement approach. A pure functional requirement approach would yield guidelines that are short and simple but very ambiguous. They give industry maximum flexibility, but provide no guidance to industry or the government agencies as to what is expected, what works, or what is sufficient.

Therefore, in putting together our comments, we have built on the NPRM guidelines, working on extending the hybrid approach, while addressing the gaps or problems seen in the EITAAC/NPRM guidelines in order to better addresses the need for both objective yet flexible guidelines.

At the same time we are sharing this proposed reorganization of the guidelines with the Access Board, we are sharing it with our colleagues in industry and consumer groups. Although our comments are already based on their input, we seek additional thoughts and reaction from them to this proposed approach as part of our ongoing research efforts on accessibility and guidelines. As we receive their feedback, we will forward those comments to the Access Board. We have also encouraged people to respond directly to the Access Board if they like.

Part 2 - Item by Item Analysis of NPRM 508 Rule

In order to facilitate compilation and correlation of the comments, we present the bulk of our individual comments on the current 508 NPRM in this section. Our comments are presented in the order in which the items appear in the NPRM.

NOTE: To facilitate moving between sections, each item will begin with the letters NPRM: followed by identifying text for that item. The comment then follows and begins with COMMENT:

Paragraph a - No comment
Paragraph b - No comment
Paragraph c - No comment
Paragraph d - comments on paragraph d included in the following general comments

COMMENT: The NPRM stated that these provisions laid out in the NPRM were based upon the EITAAC report with certain items being rearranged and renamed. However, this doesn't reflect the fact that rearranging these provisions, in some cases, substantially changed their scope and applicability. Some provisions that were originally intended to apply to all E&IT had been changed to apply to only a particular subcategory of E&IT.

In general, we agree with a restriction for many of the provisions since guaranteeing their applicability across all E&IT may not be possible. As long as there are strong functional performance criteria to cover all E&IT, we feel this strategy of the Access Board will work.

"Paragraph (D) explains how each section of this rule is to be applied. In general, the requirements in 1194.21, 1194.23, and 1194.25 are assumed to satisfy the functional performance criteria in 1194.27."

Since many of the specific requirements in the EITAAC final report were removed from the NPRM or made specific to only certain technologies, this language is troubling. For example, there are no general or component specific provisions for enhancing audio in sections 1194.21, 23, 25. Similarly, there are no provisions to prevent the use of controls that require simultaneous activation as long as it could be done on one hand. There are no provisions in sections 1194.21, 23, 25 that, if followed, would result in E&IT products, other than personal computers, to be accessible to for individuals who are blind. Provisions that would address these access issues are only found in section 1194.27, the functional performance criteria. If products complying with sections 1194.21, 23, and 25 are assumed to satisfy the functional performance criteria in 1194.27", as stated above, then it is possible to comply with 508 without having any real provision for hearing access outside of telecommunications or blindness access outside of personal computers.

It is imperative that this language be changed in the final rule so it is clear that the provisions in 1194.21, 1194.23, and 1194.25 are not meant to provide specific criterion which would necessarily satisfy the functional performance criteria. Rather it is suggested that language can be found elsewhere in the NPRM be used to describe the relationship. This language says:

"Therefore, when evaluating the compliance for any product, first look to the compliance with 1194.21, 1194.23, and 1194.25, then apply the performance criteria in 1194.27 to elements or technologies not covered in those sections and to the overall product functions."

"Where there is overlap, the specific provisions in 1194.21, 1194. 23, and 1194.25, prevail over the general provisions in 1194.27."

After just stating that they should review 1194.21, 1194. 23, and 1194.25 and then apply the functional criterion as the final overall test, this statement says that 1194.21, 1194. 23, and 1194.25 override the functional criterion. If one looks carefully at the requirements in 1194.21, 1194.23, and 1194.25, one can see that they do not completely cover any of the disabilities or functionality covered in the Functional Performance items. This language might have made sense in the old EITAAC version because in the EITAAC report there were specific provisions in the Functional Performance section. But it does not make sense within the current NPRM. While 1194.21, 1194. 23, and 1194.25 do give specific means for achieving some aspects of the Functional Performance Criterion, (in which case there is no need for them to override), we do not see how a specific provision to achieve a particular function should override the general provision that the product be usable as a whole to the individual.

It is recommended that the conflicting language be removed from the discussion and that a single set of instructions be provided which instructs the individuals to first apply the specific measures that apply to their technology and its components and then to use the functional performance criteria to evaluate the overall product accessibility.

If it is felt that the specific guidelines conflict with the functional then one or the other is written improperly (or specific requirements are embedded in a functional performance criterion). A specific guideline should always fulfill or partially fulfill one or more of the functional guidelines. And there should be no specific design criteria in the Functional Performance Guidelines to override. Finally, a specific design spec should not override the overall functional goal of making a product accessible.

It is further suggested that the instructions for interpreting the provisions be included more clearly directly in 1190.2 The questions we have heard most often relate to confusion surrounding how to apply the different sections of the provisions and how they relate to each other.

COMMENT: The NPRM states that compliance "does not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components." However, the term fundamental alteration does not appear in the list of definitions. In discussions around accessibility the term "fundamental alteration" often comes up. Whereas there is general agreement that including accessibility should not require the product to be fundamentally altered, there is a very wide range of interpretation as to what "fundamental alteration" means.

Some define a "fundamental alteration" as being a modification that fundamentally alters the ability of the product to function as it was originally intended. For example, as pointed out in the NPRM, adding a large display to a pager so that it would no longer fit in a pocket would change the way the product was intended to operate. Similarly modifying a free hand sketching program so that it was vector based so that it could be fully operated with a keyboard might fundamentally alter that application.

Others, however, have defined fundamental alteration as anything that changes the basic character of the product. For example, they consider adding voice to a product which did not previously speak to be a fundamental alteration, even if the addition of voice did not increase the product's size or significantly alter its price or battery life. Because the product did not previously speak and would now have speech, they argue, it should be considered to be fundamentally altered - even if the device continues to operate as it did before the addition of voice output.

Applying the latter interpretation of fundamental alteration could lead to many or most accessibility features being declared fundamental alterations.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a definition of fundamental alteration be included with wording similar to the following.

"A fundamental alteration is a change to a product which causes the product to be unable to carry out its primary mission or function or prevents the product from operating in its original manner. Adding an alternative presentation mode or operating mode shall not in itself constitute a fundamental alteration unless it meaningfully interferes with the original functionality, features, or operating modes of the product."

COMMENT 1: The idea of equivalent facilitation is a very important component of the 508 standards. It is essential in order to allow industry to innovate as well as to develop more effective accessibility strategies as new technologies evolve.

COMMENT 2: There is some ambiguity in the NPRM text accompanying the example of equivalent facilitation. Is the example trying to say that having the information available by phone is an "equivalent facilitation" and acceptable alternative to making the kiosk accessible? If so, then it should be stated explicitly that the phone access to the same information available from the kiosk would have to be available in the same location as the kiosk, be free, provide all the same information and be available during the same hours the kiosk is available.

RATIONALE: If the information is available by phone to everyone - and they still see a value in paying to put a kiosk out in public, then there is also some purpose or value to having access to that information in that location. As a result, the person with a disability should have access to that information in that location as well. Being in the same location and being free, (not a pay phone call) would be especially important for kiosks serving as building directories, registration kiosks, etc. The text in the NPRM should also note that the information available by phone would have to be complete and as up-to-date as the information in the kiosk.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the text accompanying the discussion of equivalent facilitation include text such as the following

An equivalent facilitation would at least have to provide access to the exact same information (same completeness and freshness), same services or functions, in the same location, during the same hours and at the same cost as the device it is acting as an equivalent for.

If the Access Board does not want to list these specifics, it should as least specify that all these things were true for the telephone example. Otherwise, it implies that the phone access could be an equivalent facilitation without meeting these conditions.

If the NPRM is suggesting that a telephone-like handset could be added to a kiosk along with speech output from the kiosk - then that should be more clearly stated. The use of the words 'touch tone' make it sound like it must be a telephone, since that is the only place you find touch tones. If it is not meant to refer to telephone access to a distant computer then it might be changed from:

"For example, an information kiosk which is not accessible to a person who is blind might be made accessible by having a telephone handset that connects to a computer that responds to touch-tone commands and delivers the same information audibly."

"For example, an information kiosk which is not accessible to a person who is blind might be made accessible by having a telephone handset that connects to the kiosk's computer and is operated from switches or a keypad on the computer and delivers the same information audibly."

COMMENT 3: A logical question that always comes up when equivalent facilitation is raised is "who decides whether something is a viable 'equivalent facilitation'?" The Access Board may wish to a comment explaining the process of evaluating equivalent facilitation.

Accessible. Electronic and information technology which complies with the requirements of this part.

COMMENT: It is common in accessibility guidelines of this type to define products as "accessible" if they comply with the guidelines. If this is done, however, great care must be taken in how the guidelines are crafted. As the functional performance criteria are currently worded in the NPRM, accessibility should not be allowed to be equated with compliance. This problem is fixable, and we later suggest how the wording of the provisions could be altered to correct this problem (in the functional performance criteria section.)

The problem in the existing NPRM language stems from the way compatibility with assistive technologies is tied into the language. Before we discuss the problem with the way that compatibility is handled in the current NPRM, let us repeat that we think the incorporation of compatibility into the provisions, in general, is a very good idea and a necessary change particularly in relation to personal workstations. Thus, we are not advocating that compatibility be removed as a functional component of accessibility for personal workstations. We think this is a valuable addition to the rules that was made by the Access Board staff and its affect needs to be retained in the final rule. The way it is incorporated into the wording of the provisions, however, needs to be adjusted.

Currently, the way the wording is structured, products can be declared accessible if they are merely compatible with assistive technology. According to the current wording, this is true even if it is known that the individual who will be encountering the product would not have the necessary assistive technology with them or would be barred from using it. There is no qualification in the rule requiring that the assistive technology actually be present or that there is any expectation of its being present before compatibility would be acceptable for compliance. For example, consider an (AT compatible) computer purchased or rented to serve as a shared email station at conferences and events where the AT needed to make it accessible will not be installed. This computer would compatible but would not be accessible or useable by anyone at the conference with a disability. Under the current structure of the NPRM this computer would "comply." If the definition of accessible is compliance that computer would be declared accessible because it complied.

This problem is addressable, as we discuss later, but it requires that compatibility be handled differently than as an "OR" clause on the functional performance criteria.

If compatibility is changed so that it is only fulfils compliance when AT can and will be present, then this definition of accessibility could stand. However, the way that "compatibility" is handled in the rules needs to be examined extraordinarily carefully before this definition of accessibility is placed into the regulations. This definition is likely to be taken as a legal definition of accessibility and applied far beyond the scope of the 508 regulations.

If the guidelines are changed so that compatibility is only applicable when the assistive technology will be present when and where users try to use the E&IT then the current definition of "accessible = compliance" can remain. Otherwise we do not recommend this definition of accessible be codified in this regulation since it will have far reaching effects where products, work stations etc could be deemed legally "accessible" even in the absence of the assistive technologies needed to make them usable.

Accessibility should be defined as - "accessible under the conditions that will exist as people with disabilities encounter the product."

Accessibility should not be defined as the - "potential of a product to be accessible under certain conditions."

COMMENT: We have no specific comments on the definition of "Agency", although the topic of agency comes up when talking about the availability of documentation and support. There is a concern that accessible documentation and training is being left to the agencies without any required support from companies.

COMMENT: "Accessible internet programming or coding languages" is somewhat ambiguous.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board might consider using "accessible internet formats"

Alternate modes. Different means of providing information, including product documentation, to people with disabilities. Alternate modes may include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, relay service, TTY, Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and audio description

COMMENT: The use of the word "mode" in this definition is problematic. The intent here is to define the phrase "alternate modes" as it is used in the section talking about dissemination. However, by using the word "modes" here it creates confusion with the access specifications throughout the regulations where it is specified that, "at least one mode shall be available for operation of the product." Some people in the past have suggested that one mode for providing information from a product was to call somebody up and ask them on the phone. Sending somebody information by fax should not be an alternate mode for providing information from a kiosk or a computer.

RECOMMENDATION: That the term "alternate modes" be changed to "alternate methods" so that the alternate methods for providing documentation and training support is not confused or substituted for alternate modes of operation for the product itself.

COMMENT: We have no specific comments on the definition of "Electronic & Information Technology".

However, the example at the end of the definition states, "medical equipment where information technology is integral to its operation are not information technology." We would suggest that the word "direct" be included in front of the word "operation" so that people with different types of disabilities are not precluded from participating in general data processing tasks involving medical data from medical instrumentation where the data processing equipment is not involved in the medical devices direct operation.

Operable controls. A component of a product that requires physical contact for a normal operation. Operable controls include but are not limited to mechanically operated controls, paper trays, card slots, keyboards, or keypads.

COMMENT 1: Since this includes things like slots and trays, a more general term than the word "controls" might be used. Perhaps "operable mechanisms" or "operable components".

COMMENT 2: Almost everyone we talked with who read this definition mistook the phrase "paper trays" to be referring to the large trays on a copier which are loaded up with reams of blank paper for copying. It is only in reading the comments that they discovered that the NPRM was referring to the input and output paper trays. It is suggested that the definition be changed slightly to say, "input and output trays."

NOTE: In our reorganization, we use the term "Operable elements" for a grouping category. It is broader than this but is not used in any of the rules and does not need to be defined.

An abbreviation for teletypewriter. Machinery or equipment that employs interactive text based communications through the transmission of coded signals across the telephone network. TTYs may include, for example, devices known as TDDs (telecommunication display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf persons) or computers with special modems. TTYs are also called text telephones.

COMMENT: We suggest a slightly altered definition of TTY since this definition seems to include a broader range of topics than are usually included under TTY. For example, there are text telephones now that are not TTYs and are not TTY compatible.

We suggest that the term "baudot" be used in the definition to clearly narrow the definition to just TTYs. This is important from both a consumer and an industry stand point.

It is the hope of both industry and consumers that we as a country will eventually migrate away from baudot TTYs. Until that migration is complete, however, ( and industry no longer has the requirement to be compatible with baudot TTYs), companies are not interested in being required to make their systems compatible with baudot TTYs as well as a variety of other telecommunication devices being designed for and used by people who are deaf and using other technologies.

RECOMMENDATION: Add the word 'baudot' in front of the word "coded" in the definition

Sub-Part B - Accessibility Standards

1194.21 (A) Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element

COMMENT 1: In the EITAAC document there were two items under the color section.

One topic dealt with the use of color to convey information. That item is captured very well in this NPRM item and we have no comments or suggestions for changing that item.

The second topic has to do with whether or not the information being presenting would become unreadable if an individual had a color deficiency, - not because it was color coded, but because the colors used would lose their contrast with each other. That is, the colors used for the lettering and the background would be distinct enough if you could see color, but would blend together if you could not see color, making the letters unreadable.

Note that this is a separate topic from the one addressed under non-embedded systems which required that software applications have a variety of colors that the user could select from. The problem cited here is more of an issue of contrast than it is of color, but it is caused by color perception deficiencies.

RECOMMENDATION: No change to this item. A separate item is proposed later to handle the contrast problem both in general and as it relates to color deficiency problems.

NPRM: 1194.21 (B) Products which are freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be used in one location and which have operable controls shall comply with the following:

NPRM: 1194.21 (C) When flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements are displayed, the flash rate shall not exceed two Hertz

COMMENT 1: The EITAAC recommended that frequencies of 3 Hz or lower or 60 Hz or higher be used. In the NPRM this was changed to 2 Hz.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the provision be three hertz or lower in agreement with the research and recommendations of Jeavons and Harding who have conducted the most extensive research on this topic.

COMMENT 2: We note that the Access Board did not choose to set an upper limit. If it chooses to not do so, we at least recommend that they issue a warning to avoid any flicker in the range of twenty hertz, plus or minus fifteen, if at all possible since this is the frequency of maximum susceptibility to photo epileptic seizures.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the NPRM require that products avoid any flickering between (but not including) 3 and 55 hertz (which is the power frequency for Europe).

NPRM: 1194.21 (D) If a timed response is required, at least one mode which does not require users to respond within a timed interval or allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to at least 5 times the default setting, shall be provided.

It is noted that the board also seeks information on whether this would cause security problems and whether there are commercially available systems which would allow adjustments of timed intervals.

COMMENT: There are a number of different systems which allow users to adjust timing factors. On standard personal computers this is usually done through the control panel. On products using EZ Access, it can be done through a menu option as well as being invoked automatically when the EZ Access features are used. On a number of ATMs and other products, the user is prompted to see if they need additional time.

In some situations, the manner in which timing adjustments are implemented can cause a problem.

From a user perspective, for example, if a product asks if more time is needed and then doesn't provide enough time for the user to respond, it can leave the user unable to complete his or her task.

From a product standpoint, timeout periods that are too long could pose security risks. For example, many ATMs are designed to time-out when the individual does not perform any action for a given period of time. The timeout is intended to cause the ATM to reset before the next person in line steps up and uses the ATM while the original person's sign-in was still active. Increasing the time before the ATM resets would increase the ease with which someone else could step up to the ATM and find it still registered to the previous user.

In order to address these important issues, it is suggested that a variety of techniques be allowed in this area including the strategy of asking an individual if they need additional time.

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the language in the NPRM be extended somewhat to provide an additional option to manufacturers. The revised wording would be.

"At least one mode shall be provided which a) does not require the user to respond or read within a timed interval or b) allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to at least five times the default setting or c) offers the user the opportunity to extend their time and allows at least ten seconds to respond to the offer."

RECOMMENDATION 2: That an advisory be inserted that alternate strategies to timing be used for resetting systems. For example,

ADVISORY: Consider using other techniques instead of time-out to reset a system or prevent a new user from using a previous user's sign on. For example, some ATMs are now using an inexpensive motion sensor (such as used on faucets) that will detect immediately when an individual departs. Some banks such as CitiCorp also use a technique where any additional transactions, which involve removal or transfer of cash, require the person to re-enter their PIN to ensure that no "tailgating" occurs.

This is particularly important on machines which use a card to swipe or dip where the individual can grab their cash and step away from the terminal since they already have their credit card. It should be noted that even the usual reset delay does not provide any real protection since it is often only seconds after you step away from the terminal before the next individual steps up.

NPRM: 1194.21 (E) Where biometric forms of user identification or activation are used, an alternative form of identification or activation, which does not require the user to possess particular biological characteristics, shall also be provided.

We note that the Access Board (in question five) requests additional information on this topic including the use of multiple biological forms of identification and whether alternate forms could be added at a later date. The Board also asks for differentiation between workstations and other applications.

COMMENT 1: Providing an option to offer multiple biological identification techniques would greatly reduce the probability that an individual would be prevented from gaining access while still maintaining the basic biological form of access. If one accepted fingerprint, voice or iris identification as options, for example, one would be pretty sure of providing access. The provision of just two of three, however, might be a problem for victims of burn or flash explosion. At that point, it is probable that some accommodation could be made for those extreme cases. It is an interesting question, however, if the government went to a system where all systems used and required a biologic sign-on with no non-biologic alternative. More likely, however, is a situation where there is a standard biological system which is used to sign-on to most systems and a different, perhaps more expensive, one is used as an alternative for those individuals unable to use the original.

COMMENT 2: A key issue around this topic, however, is how the biometric identification process is being applied. If it is being used to sign-on to a personal workstation, then it is unlikely that it should be required that all workstations have multiple biological identification equipment on them. It should be sufficient that the manufacture would agree to place one type of biological identification system with another acceptable and appropriate system at any time in the future should it become necessary or that they provide a mixture so that the alternate type would be available should it be needed for new or transferring employees as well as any current employees.

Where the biological ID system is being used to control access to physical areas (such as at a doorway) or to shared equipment, then it would probably be necessary that the multiple forms be on the device or that an alternate mechanism for operating the system be available to those who would need to access and use the space or resources now or at some time in the future.

NPRM: 1194.21 (F) Where touchscreens or touch-operated controls are used, such controls shall be operable without requiring body contact or close human body proximity, or all of the operations and functions that are available through such controls shall be made available through an alternate mode that does not require body contact or close human body proximity.

(1) Controls and keys shall be tactilely discernable without activating the controls or keys.

COMMENT: As written, this provision requires that all controls and keys be tactilely discernable. This is meant to apply to all mechanical controls. Unfortunately, this would outlaw all (legal) touchscreen controls, large and small. There is a later provision that requires touchscreens to be operable without requiring human body contact. Most of the touchscreens that comply with this provision use a mechanical mechanism not unlike that used on elastomeric keyboards. As a result, they would be technically covered under this provision and could not comply.

In addition, this provision requires that the buttons on a mouse be tactilely discernable since they are mechanical as well. However, there is no particular purpose in making mouse buttons tactilely discernable since the mouse is not usable by an individual who is blind. (Elsewhere in the component specific requirements, it is required that products which have keyboards allow complete functionality from the keyboard, so mouse access is not needed).

We would suggest that rather than saying that all controls must be tactilely discernable, only those controls that are needed for full operation of the device (in non-visual mode) need to be tactilely discernable.

RECOMMENDATION 1: It is, therefore, recommended that this provision be reworded slightly to say:

At least one mode shall be provided where all functionality of the product can be achieved using operating mechanisms which are tactually discernable without activation.

RECOMMENDATION 2: It is recommended that an advisory be provided which would recommend that products be made in a way to make it easy for individuals with low vision to be able to use their vision to locate keys. It is particularly important since individuals who are not blind tend to use their remaining vision rather than their tactile senses and therefore will often not find keys which are tactilely distinct but visually invisible (because they don't search in areas where there doesn't appear to be something). It is therefore recommended that the following advisory be added.

ADVISORY: Keys should also be visually discernable from the background. This could be accomplished by providing a high contrast between the key and the device body or with a dark edge on the key or a (contrasting) gap of sufficient width around the key (as is found on many keyboards).

Note: Although provision (1) "Controls and keys shall be tactilely discernable without activating the controls or keys." is correct, the rationale that goes with it misinterprets the provision. This provision simply says that the key should be discernable, meaning that they should be able to be found. The accompanying discussion seems to imply that discernable also means being able identify the key or distinguish it from other keys. In fact, being able to tactilely discern the keys, means that one can simply find and correctly count the number of keys that are present. Being able to identify the key is a separate task entirely. Thus, the references to using different shapes, spacing, or tactile markings suggest ways to identify the keys, not discern them from each other. Similarly, putting nibs on the "j" and "f" or grouping the keys has to do with providing mechanisms for identifying keys rather than making them tactually discernable. Although it is important to be able to identify keys, that requirement is not included in this provision's language. In fact, there is nothing in the current NPRM that discusses any strategies to allow an individual to identify keys if they have low vision or blindness.

That the language regarding control identification be removed from the discussion for provision (1).

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: In our recommendations for reorganization, we have included some provisions that were in the EITAAC report that would help address the issue of control identification such as providing all visual information in audible form.

NPRM: 1194.23 (A) (2) The status of all locking or toggle controls or keys shall be visually discernible, and discernible either through touch or sound

NPRM: 1194.23 (A) (3) Controls Shall Be Operable with One Hand and Shall Not Require Tight Grasping, Pinching, or Twisting of the Wrist. The force required to activate controls shall be five pounds (22.2 N) maximum.

COMMENT 1: The discussion for this provision refers to the need to be able to operate products without requiring fine motor control or requiring two hands or fingers or simultaneous operation. However, the provision itself does not include simultaneous operation or fine motor control. It is recommended that the phrases "fine motor control" and "simultaneous actions" be added to this provision.

COMMENT 2: Many products have different ways of carrying out an activity. For example, a product may have a mouse and a keyboard, both of which can be used to carry out activities on the screen. Whereas, the mouse would require fine motor control, the keyboard does not. In order to prevent having a rule which would seem to eliminate the ability to use fine pointing controls for those that have fine motor movement, it is suggested that the wording be changed slightly so that it just requires that there be a complete set of controls or operable parts which would allow access to the full functionality of the product without necessarily requiring that all of the controls meet this specification.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the language for this item be changed to:

"At least one method for achieving all functions shall be provided which is operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, twisting of the wrist, fine motor control, or simultaneous actions. The force required to activate controls shall be five pounds (22.2 N) maximum."

NOTE: We also note that 5 lbs seems to be a lot for activating controls in E&IT. We do not have another specific number, however.

NPRM: 1194.23 (A) (4) All Actions Available or Required by the Product Shall be operable from the Keyboard or Keypad

COMMENT 1: It is suggested that this requirement be restricted to all "software/firmware operable" actions since there may be a number of operations or actions which are mechanical in nature. It would not be possible to make these operable from a keyboard.

COMMENT 2: The NPRM states that all action should be available from a keyboard or a keypad. This is an expansion from the EITAAC, which recommended simply that all actions be accessible from a keyboard. We would suggest that the language, again, return to just referring to all actions being available from a keyboard. There are many products which have a keypad, but where it would be unreasonable to have all of the functions be available from the keypad. For example, consider a business telephone. It would be quite difficult to design one that would allow for all of the functions of the phone to be operable from the keypad on the phone. It is also not clear how that would increase accessibility over other techniques. It is possible that one mode of access could be provided in that fashion. However, there are other more effective techniques.

On systems equipped with a keyboard, however, complete operation from the keyboard is not only a practical means of providing access, it is usually very effective, especially when coupled with speech.

RECOMMENDATION 1: It is recommended that this item be reworded to apply only to systems with keyboards and reworded slightly as follows:

"All software/firmware operable actions available or required by the product shall be available from the keyboard."

RECOMMENDATION 2; This item also be positioned so that it applies to software as well since it must also support this functionality

NPRM: 1194.23 (A) (5) If keyboard repeat is supported, the keyboard delay before repeat shall be adjustable to at least 2 seconds. Key repeat rate shall be adjustable to 2 seconds per character.

COMMENT: In general we agree with the provisions in this section. However, some of the provisions need to be applied to devices other than non-embedded software platforms. For example, some of the requirements in this section that deal with keyboard navigation, etc., should apply to any system which has a keyboard and a display, even if it does not fall into the category of non-embedded software.

Also, a number of the requirements in this section deal with compatibility with assistive technology. It is suggested that the items dealing with compatibility with assistive technology be grouped together, perhaps under a section called "compatibility with software assistive technology." We believe that this is an interesting parallel to begin drawing as we move into the future, where software assistive technology is compatible with applications and platforms which are very different from today's personal workstations. It may be possible in the future to access and invoke assistive technology like screen readers from a network, even on computers other than one's personal workstation. In our suggestions for reorganization, we have anticipated such an arrangement. The trick, of course, is to create a set of provisions that make sense and are applicable today with today's technology, and yet won't get us in trouble as the technologies evolve.

It should also be noted that use of the terms "embedded" and "non-embedded" software is very tricky these days. The NPRM defines embedded software as that which is on a chip, and non-embedded as that which is on a storage device and can be updated. An increasing number of products which we thought of as having "embedded" software, now use chips where the software can be "flashed" and updated. In addition, programmable computers which we used to think of as having storage devices like hard drives, etc., now have nothing in them except the same type of flash memory. For example, the NetPliance is an Internet appliance with an operating system (QNX operating system from QSSL), email and an Internet browser. The device has no hard drive or any other type of storage mechanism other than flash memory. When you turn the computer off and turn it back on, it simply runs software which is stored in its non-volatile memory. However, every few days when it connects to the Internet, new firmware is downloaded to give it new capabilities. Hence, the NetPliance is something that looks like a computer, but has no storage medium other than its non-volatile memory chips.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are simple cell phones which have no Internet capability of any kind and which can only be used to make phone calls. All of the cell phone's programming, however, is contained, again, on a flash memory, so that the software can be upgraded.

Even pagers are available where all of the programming is in non-volatile RAM so that it can be easily upgraded. However, neither the cell phone nor the pager allow you to download and run other software in the background, such as a screen reader.

Thus, you have devices that fit the NPRM's description of embedded systems, but in fact have operating systems and could support assistive technology. We have devices which clearly would fit the definition of non-embedded software, but function as embedded software devices. So there are already technologies on the market which make the definitions of embedded and non-embedded software hopelessly confounded. We therefore suggest that these definitions no longer are valid or meaningful with today's or tomorrow's technologies.

In the suggested reorganization (Part 3), we suggest some slight changes in language and terminology so that the terms "embedded" and "non-embedded" are replaced with functional terminology to avoid the ambiguity that is resulting from the evolving and converging nature of information technologies.

NPRM: 1194.23 (B) (1) Logical Navigation Among Interface Elements Shall Be Provided By Use of Keystrokes

COMMENT 1: This is a good technique requirement. Our only suggestion is that it should apply to any device which has a display with interface elements on it and a keyboard (and not just to "non-embedded" or "OS based" systems). In the past these have all been non-embedded software applications, but this is not true today and will not be true in the future.

COMMENT 2: Also, it should be possible to not only navigate among the items but to be able to operate them as well.

RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that this provision be made to apply to products that have software interface elements on a display and also have a keyboard. It should also support activation of elements, in addition to navigation. Suggested new wording for the provision would be:

"If interface elements are provided on a display, then logical navigation among interface elements and operation shall be provided by use of keystrokes."

NPRM: 1194.23 (B) (2) Software shall not interfere with existing features of other products or operating systems that affect the usability for people with disabilities

NPRM: 1194.23 (B) (3) Well Defined On-Screen Indication of the Current Focus Shall Be Provided That Moves Among Interactive Interface Elements as The Input Focus Changes. The Focus Shall Be Programmatically Exposed so that Assistive Technology can Track Focus and Focus Changes

COMMENT: This provision actually includes two requirements, both of which are good. One, however, should be more generally applied.

The first requirement: providing a well defined on-screen focus indicator, is something that should be true for embedded and non-embedded software systems. Again, any system that has on-screen elements and a focus should provide a mechanism that is well defined and highly visible. It is recommended that this be generalized beyond just embedded software.

The second requirement deals with the fact that this focus should be programmatically exposed so that it can be tracked by assistive technology. This, of course, should stay with the other requirements that deal with software assistive technology compatibility.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this requirement be divided into two parts:

NPRM: 1194.23 (4) Sufficient Information About a User Interface Element Including the Identity, Operation and State of the Element Shall be Available to Assistive Technology

The only issue arises around products where there is no assistive technology available. Creating hooks for AT should not preclude the necessity to either find AT that would work with the platform, provide sufficient incentives that AT would be built for their platform, or build access directly into the product if no AT vendors were interested. Hooks without AT to work with them should never be equated with accessibility.

In the suggested reorganization, we attempt to provide wording to address this problem so that industry is not left with a set of requirements around assistive technology compatibility that it would be unable to address -- nor with the ability to claim accessibility through AT compatibility if there aren't sufficient AT available commercially for their platform to meet the performance guidelines.

NPRM: 1194.23 (5) Where an image represents an interface element or the state of an interface element, there must be a way for assistive technology to associate meaningful text with the image.

NPRM: 1194.23 (6) The Use of Images Shall be Consistent Throughout an Application

COMMENT: The discussion mentions that the purpose for this provision is to facilitate use of screen readers by making sure text can be associated with a bitmap image. According to the other requirements in this same section, applications are already required to associate text with any images. It would, therefore, appear that this requirement is redundant with the techniques above and would only be useful on old screen readers. It should be noted that screen readers that are that old would be unable to take advantage of most of the other information discussed in this section.

Consistency in design is also good for individuals with cognitive disabilities and is generally a good human factors principle. It is suggested, however, that rather than including this as a requirement, this item might be changed to an advisory. Another reason for doing this is that often individuals will use an icon to depict different things themselves. This provision might prevent an application from allowing icons to be used differently by a user.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this provision be an advisory rather than mandatory.

NPRM: 1194.23 (7) Text shall be provided through an application programming interface supporting interaction with assistive technology or use system text writing tools. The minimum information that shall be available to assistive technology is text content, text input caret location, and text attributes.

NPRM: 1194.23 (8) A Minimum of Eight Foreground and Eight Background Color Selections Capable of Producing a Variety of Contrast Levels Shall be Provided

COMMENTS: First, the problem that this requirement is attempting to address has little to do with the number of colors, but actually the number of color settings (which include hue, saturation and darkness). Users need to be able to adjust the color (hue), but also the saturation and the darkness. A system could have a small or large number of colors (hues) and be accessible (including 8). The key to accessibility is in having the ability to set the other dimensions, particularly lightness/darkness. Good contrast is achieved by having some colors set to light and other colors set to dark. If this is done, then regardless of the colors (and color deficiencies) there will be good contrast between figure and ground and the person will be able to see the text or other elements.

We suggest that contrast, rather than the number of colors, be the focus of the requirement. That is, that there be sufficient contrast for visibility and readability. Even if the individual is provided with a wide range of colors, most individuals do not have the ability to go play with the color palettes in such a fashion that it would result in different applications providing them with good contrasts. The best language we have heard is that "color choices representing the full range of brightness, including pure black and pure white, and at least six choices with brightness values approximately evenly spaced in between those two extremes."

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the emphasis be moved from providing a large number of colors to providing applications which provide good contrast.

COMMENT 2: The second component of this provision in the EITAAC recommendation was that large fonts and different font styles, including Sans Serif fonts, be available. In the NPRM discussion, it was stated that screen enlargement software would be required and could be used by people who need increased font size. The problem with screen enlargement software is that it causes most of the text to move out of view, requiring an individual to pan back and forth repeatedly in order to try to read text. This makes it very difficult to track off the end of one line of text and on to the beginning of the next. When fonts can be enlarged, the words will automatically wrap, and the individual can read the text without having to constantly pan the screen left and right. The ability to read text without panning can greatly increase a user's efficiency.

RECOMMENDATION 2: It is recommended that the ability to adjust font size be added back in at least on an advisory basis.

NPRM: 1194.23 (9) An Option Shall be Provided to Ignore Individual Application Display Attributes so System Wide Settings will be Maintained

COMMENT: The problem sometimes manifests itself as a program that will not allow users to override the display attributes of documents as well.

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the words "and document" be added after the word Application.

RECOMMENDATION 2: That keyboard settings be removed from the discussion of this item since this item only deals with display settings and it is confusing.

NPRM: 1194.23 (10) Electronic forms shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form including all directions and cues. Inaccessible electronic forms may be used, if an alternative accessible electronic form with equivalent information, field elements, and functionality is also provided.

COMMENT:. This topic seems to already be covered in the previous sections. Furthermore this seems to provide an exemption for forms that is not available for anything else. Is this what is intended? If so, shouldn't an exemption be provided for anything where there is an alternate way to achieve it?

Perhaps there should be a general "at least one mode for " phrase attached to some of the items in this group.

NPRM: 1194.23 (11) If Animated Moving Text is Provided, it Should Also be Displayable in at Least One Static Presentation Mode at the Option of the User

COMMENT 1 : In the write-up, this is stated as being a provision to address a problem faced by screen readers. In fact, it is a problem also for individuals with low vision who have trouble reading moving text, individuals who are deaf and who may need more time, individuals with physical disabilities that affect the stability of their head or ocular tracking.

COMMENT 2 : The discussion seems to indicate that any animated element should be addressed, but the guideline only mentions text.

RECOMMENDATION 1 : It is recommended that this provision be categorized as a generally applied provision as it was in the EITACC report rather than being treated only as an assistive technology compatibility issue.

RECOMMENDATION 2 : That the language be changed to any animated element of the user interface.

COMMENT 1: There is a concern with the promulgation of multiple standards for web accessibility. Although the 508 provisions are based on the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, they differ in a number of places sufficiently that it is causing confusion among people who don't know whether to follow the language in one set of guidelines or the other.

In some places, confusion is introduced by the variation in terminology in the NPRM provisions themselves. In other cases, it is in the language that accompanies the provisions, which explains how they are to be applied, that leads to confusion. In several places the NPRM language provides a quite different interpretation in the explanatory text than the WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for the same WAI guideline.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Ideally, the 508 regulations could refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) directly. If desired, a copy could be included as an appendix to the regulation.

RECOMMENDATION 2: If it is not possible to directly refer to the WCAG guidelines, then the language in the NPRM should be harmonized more closely with the WAI's. It is possible that much of the disharmony is accidental rather than intentional changes to the guidelines.

COMMENT 2: The 508 provisions only included priority one guideline from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (except for the one Priority 3 item).

This sets a minimum standard for accessibility. There is a concern that this level of accessibility will establish a new legal standard for accessibility that is quite low. This concern stems from the fact that "accessible" is defined as complying with these guidelines, and these guidelines only require Priority 1 items from the WAI guidelines. This is a very conservative level of compliance and will still leave web sites very difficult to use for many people. If individuals need to use the web as part of their daily livelihood (which is becoming increasingly common), this could be a severe hardship.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that level two WAI WCAG guidelines be required, or, if that is not possible, then at least included as an advisory.

COMMENT 3: It is noted that the cognitive aspects of the web guidelines and the EITAAC guidelines have all been dropped. One of the larger groups of individuals in the federal government with disabilities would include people with learning disabilities. It is recommended that the Access Board reconsider including the cognitive disability related guideline. If this guideline cannot be included as a requirement, it should be included as an advisory.

COMMENT 4: The EITAAC recommended that the WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and the WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) also be included. Although the general software accessibility provisions in the NPRM will address some of the issues around making these tools accessible, the web tool area (both for generation and for browsing) has a number of unique requirements which are not addressed. This area is becoming important enough that the Access Board may want to re-examine the WAI guidelines to identify key issues that should be incorporated in the NPRM.

RECOMMENDATION: That Priority 1 items of the WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and the WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) also be included as required and that Priority 2 items be advisory.

COMMENT: We concur with the Access Board's movement of certain provisions from the general level in the EITAAC report into this narrower application. Although certain provisions could apply to a wider range of technologies than just telecommunications, it is not practical to require them for all E&IT.

In the reorganization, we do suggest that two provisions, (hearing aid compatibility and volume specifications) be applied to communication systems in general, rather than narrowly focused only on telecommunication. This is particularly important for the items related to volume control, as noted below.

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (1) Telecommunications products which provide a function allowing voice communication and which do not themselves provide a TTY functionality shall provide a standard non-acoustic connection point for TTYs. It shall also be possible for the user to easily turn any microphone on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with TTY use

COMMENT: A new standard for connecting TTYs that has been developed is the use of a 2.5mm headset jack such as those used on cellular phones. This standard would be a very valuable thing for industry to follow, since it would be quite convenient and economical to implement. However, manufacturers not in the cellular technology area may not be aware of this standard.

RECOMMENDATION: It is suggested that a note be added after this item that would read as follows:

NOTE: A 2.5mm headset jack with industry standard signal levels would meet this requirement.

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (2) Telecommunications products which include voice communication functionality shall support use of all cross-manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs.

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (3) Voice Mail, Auto Attendant, and Interactive Voice Telecommunication Response Systems Shall be Usable by TTY Users with Their TTYs

COMMENT: It is recommended that these systems be accessible, not only by people who are accessing these systems directly, but also by those accessing these systems through a telephone relay service operator.

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the TRS option be added, so that it would read:

"Voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall be usable by TTY users directly with their TTYs and via TRS operators including the ability of the TRS operators to repeat and pause messages so that they can keep up with the recording."

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (4) Voice mail, messaging, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall provide at least one mode which does not require users to respond within a timed interval or allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to a minimum of 5 times the default.

COMMENT 1: This item is duplicative with the timing item in the general requirements category. However, it does no harm to put it down here next to the other voice mail items, unless it implies that people following the telecommunication functions do not need to follow the provisions in the general requirements section.

COMMENT 2: In some circumstances, depending upon the system and default setting, a value of five times the default setting may not provide users with sufficient time to respond. For example, if a user is presented with a question or information, he or she may need time to decipher and comprehend the information before choosing a response. Preferably, the system will allow users the maximum of flexibility in setting response time. A timeout extension could be accomplished by asking the user if he or she needs more time. This has the affect of extending the amount of time available to them to carry out an action. Users should also be given the option of repeating messages delivered by the system.

RECOMMENDATION: The wording in the provision could be changed as follows to reflect the special nature of interactive voice response systems:

"Voice mail, messaging, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall provide at least one mode which allows users to repeat messages and does not require users to respond within a timed interval or allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to a minimum of 5 times the default or offers the user an option to extend their time and provides at least 10 seconds to respond to the offer. "

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (5) Where provided, caller identification and similar telecommunications functions shall also be available for users of TTYs, telecommunications relay services, and for users who cannot see displays.

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (6) For transmitted voice signals, telecommunications products shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB. For incremental volume control, at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain shall be provided.

COMMENT: This should probably be generalized beyond just telecommunication to other communication systems in the work place. A suggestion for how to do that is included in our reorganization.

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (7) If the telecommunications product allows a user to adjust the receive volume, a function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use but not before.

COMMENT: For private workstation telephones, having it reset following each use can be very disconcerting and inefficient. It is, therefore, recommended that there be a way of overriding this reset feature.

RECOMMENDATION: We suggest that the following be added to the end of this item so that it reads:

"Telecommunication products which allow a user to adjust the receive volume shall provide a function to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use, but not before. Unless the volume can exceed 120 dB SPL, the reset function shall be a user option on non-public devices."

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (8) Where a telecommunications product delivers output by an audio transducer, which is normally held up to the ear, a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing technologies shall be provided.

COMMENT: It is suggested that this requirement be applied beyond telecommunication to any situation where an acoustic output device is held up to the ear. This would include kiosks or museum exhibits or even intercoms, where a handset-like device is used for conveying voice signals.

RECOMMENDATION: We suggest that the requirement be reworded slightly and moved up to a general audio requirement as follows:

"Where a product delivers information by an audio output device which is normally held up to the ear, a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing technologies shall be provided, except where all information is also provided visually."

NPRM: 1194.23 (D) (9) Interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) shall be reduced to the lowest possible level that allows a user of hearing technologies to utilize the telecommunications product.

COMMENT: It is recommended that this item be moved up to the general requirements category, since it is not just telecommunication products that can generate interference with hearing technologies.

COMMENT: We suggest this section be retitled to read "Video, Multi-Media, and Animation," thus representing the full range of activities in new generation digital media which may cause accessibility problems.

NPRM: 1194.23 (E) (1) All television displays 13 inches and larger, and computer equipment that includes television receiver circuitry, shall be equipped with caption decoder circuitry which appropriately receives, decodes, and displays closed captions from broadcast, cable, videotape, and DVD signals.

COMMENT: This provision appears to be written so that it would generally apply to computers and other display devices that would be displaying captioned video. The way it is worded, however, it is not clear that this would cover devices which do not have receivers in them. We suggest that the language be modified slightly to include the fact that all devices which project or display NTSC signals, would need to include a closed caption decoder so that captions would be visible.

"All television displays and projectors 13" and larger, and computer equipment that includes television receiver circuitry or accepts NTSC input shall be equipped with caption decoder circuitry which appropriately receives, decodes, and displays closed captions from broadcast, cable, video, DVD signals, etc."

NPRM: 1194.23 (E) (2) Television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry.

NPRM: 1194.23 (E) (3) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain speech or other audio necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed captioned if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with hearing impairments.

NPRM: 1194.23 (E) (4) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain visual information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be audio described if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with visual impairments.

NPRM: 1194.23 (E) (5) Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent.

NPRM: 1194.23 (F) Information kiosks and transaction machines shall be usable by people with disabilities without requiring an end-user to attach assistive technology to the information kiosk or transaction machine.

NPRM: 1194.23 (F) (2) Where information kiosks and transaction machines deliver audio output, including speech, a mechanism shall be provided for private listening and user interruptability.

COMMENT: Generally we agree with this requirement, except that it probably should be at the general requirements level. Thus, whenever speech is provided for access on any product (not just on kiosks and ATMs), it should be interruptible. Also, wherever the headphone jack is used, it should be possible for the user to listen privately as well.

RECOMMENDATION: Move interruptability and private listening to the general level, as separate items. Private listening could be attached to the headphone jack requirement, since it is so closely related.

NPRM: 1194.23 (F) (3) Where information kiosks and transaction machines deliver voice output, incremental volume control shall be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable.

COMMENT: It is recommended that this requirement be applied more generally. In particular, if there is any product that is providing voice output, it is recommended that there be a volume control that provides sufficient volume. The volumes specified here are actually about the same as someone talking loud and within the range of output of even small pocket recorders.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this requirement be moved up to the general requirements section.

NPRM: 1194.25 (A) All products that act as a transport or conduit for information or communication shall pass through cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary, industry-standard codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to provide the information or communication in a usable format. Technologies which use encoding, signal compression, format transformation, or similar techniques shall not remove information needed for access or shall restore it upon delivery.

NPRM: 1194.25 (B) Where Provided, At Least One of Each Type of Expansion Slots, Ports, and Connectors Shall Comply with Publicly Available Industry Standards.

COMMENT: While this is a good recommendation for things like personal computers, there is a problem when you try to extend the concept to all electronic and information technologies. For example, the Merlin phone systems provide a phone with an expansion slot on the side. You can snap additional modules on the side of the phone to add features or call buttons. Under this provision, it appears as if the government would not be able to purchase those phones, since it has a non-standard slot on the side and there are no other expansion slots provided. Even if Merlin were to publish the slot specifications as a standard, it would not provide any particular accessibility advantage, since there are no assistive technologies that would be designed for that particular phone expansion slot. Similarly, there are small handheld devices that have slots on them. Even cell phones have proprietary slots on the bottom for adding peripherals and expanding functionality. For example, the Nokia phone has a connector on the bottom that expansion modules can be connected to. This is a non-standard connector.

However, the existence of standard connectors on products, particularly I/O connectors, is quite valuable. Combined with assistive technology software, it provides an alternate mechanism to easily transport information in and out of the product to assistive technology peripherals. Perhaps, if the word "slot" was dropped and the rest of the provision that deals with standard ports and connectors were retained, it would achieve most of its functionality while avoiding the problem. Most assistive technologies today are software based and/or connect through the external connectors and high speed buses such as the universal serial bus. As a result, slot access is less important than in the past.

NPRM: 1194.25 (C) Operating system software shall not interfere with assistive technology.

COMMENT: This one is very general and sweeping. Some more specifics are needed here. AT can be anything. Not clear what is desired or required. This one will drive both manufacturers and evaluators crazy without some specific guidance.

NPRM: 1194.25 (D) Products providing auditory output shall provide the auditory signal at a standard signal level through an industry standard connector.

COMMENT 1 : This is a good rule, except there are some products whose auditory output consists of just simple beeps. Where these beeps are also represented in an equivalent visual fashion, it does not seem that the provision of a headphone jack should be required.

COMMENT 2 :This would also be a good place to mention that there should be a mechanism for cutting off the audio (i.e., silencing any speakers) when the headphone jack is used. This is important, since individuals often turn the volume up. It does not have to be required that it would cut off (silence) the speaker, but it should be possible.

COMMENT 3 :Finally, this requirement mentions that the audio should be provided through a standard connector. However, the purpose for putting it on a standard connector is so that assistive technologies can be connected to it. If an arbitrary number of different standard connectors are used, it would mean that people with disabilities would have to carry around adapters for the different connectors. Since almost all audio today is put out through either a 2.5mm or 3.5mm phone jack, it is recommended that these either be required or they be as an advisory. (The manufacturer would have the option of using either connector.) The 2.5mm is typically used as a headset jack on all telephones and very small devices. The 3.5mm phone jack is used on all miniature devices, including miniature radios and recorders.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the wording would be expanded slightly to read:

"Products providing auditory output shall provide the auditory signal at a standard signal level through an industry standard connector. Auditory cutoff of speaker shall be available to allow the user to listen privately.

"Exception: Products that produce only simple non-speech sounds that are already presented in equivalent visual form shall not be required to have such a connector.

First, we think that simplifying the functional performance criteria by removing the sub-items and bringing them to the bottom of the document as an overall evaluation measure is an excellent idea.

Secondly, the introduction of the compatibility option is also a significant and important concept. However, the way in which compatibility is currently defined in the provisions leads to some serious but addressable problems.

Unfortunately, adding these essential qualifications to each item would make the functional performance items quite awkward. For example:

(a) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that provides full access to the functionality of the product and does not require user vision shall be provided, or support for assistive technology used by people who are blind or visually impaired that would provide full functionality and is typically available to such users when they encounter the product shall be provided.

Rather than creating a very long set of performance criteria by attaching this language to each one, it is suggested that it be included as the introductory or qualifying phrase for all of the guidelines. We recommend that it be placed at the top of the entire set of standards. It could then perhaps be repeated here as a note for clarity.

NOTE: If users would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT, then the ability of the product to meet these criteria can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

(a) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user vision and that allows full access shall be provided.

(b) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/200, that does not require audio perception, and that allows full access shall be provided.

(c) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user hearing and that allows full access shall be provided.

(d) Where audio information is important for the use of a product, at least one mode of operation and information presentation shall be provided in an enhanced auditory fashion.

(e) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user speech and that allows full access shall be provided.

(f) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions, that is operable with limited reach and strength, and that allows full access shall be provided.

As the provisions on documentation and support are currently worded, it appears as though companies offering products to the government do not need to provide accessible documentation materials or training. For example, the current NPRM wording is:

(a) Agencies shall ensure that any product support documentation provided by the agency to end-users, is available in alternate formats upon request, at no additional charge.

(b) Agencies shall ensure that end-users have access to a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of products provided by the agency in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request, at no additional charge.

(c) Agencies shall ensure that support services for products provided by the agency, will accommodate the communication needs of end-users with disabilities

In order for a product or system to be fully accessible, the information about the product and product support services must also be accessible. These issues are addressed in this section.

Paragraph (a) provides that when an agency provides end-user documentation to users of technology, the agency must ensure that the documentation is available upon request in alternate formats. Alternate formats are defined in section 1194.4, Definitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, this provision does not require alternate formats of documentation that is not provided by the agency to other users of technology. This provision is consistent with the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Paragraph (b) requires that agencies supply end-users with information about accessibility or compatibility features that are built into a product, upon request. This provision is consistent with the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines and the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Paragraph (c) provides that help desks and other support services serving an agency must be capable of accommodating the communications needs of persons with disabilities. For example, an agency help desk may need to communicate through a TTY. The help desk or support service must also be familiar with such features as keyboard access and other options important to people with disabilities. This provision is consistent with the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines and the recommendations of the advisory committee.

The advisory committee also recommended that any training provided by manufacturers, providers or other parties, accommodate the functional capabilities of all participants. The Board has not included this provision since Federal employees already have a right to accessible training under section 504 and other provisions of the Rehabilitation Act.

It appears as though government agencies, not the companies selling the products, are responsible for providing all of the documentation and training for the products in accessible form.

That the responsibility for providing accessible materials or training on request be shifted back to the companies which generate the materials.

The following section includes a discussion of guidelines that appeared in the EITAAC final report, but which did not appear in the NPRM. In some cases we recommend that these guidelines be included in the 508 regulations; in other cases we agree with the Access Board's decision to remove these guidelines.

The Access Board did not include 14 items that were in the EITAAC report in the NPRM. There are five of them that we think the Board should reconsider.

Since these items are not in the NPRM, each of these items is preceded by ITEM: instead of NPRM.

EITAAC: "5.2.1.2.4 The contrast between the text and the background behind the text at its worst location shall be greater than 70% or it shall be able to adjust the text or background to meet this specification."

COMMENT: The NPRM did not include the above EITAAC guideline, which recommended that a contrast setting of 70% or greater be available between text and its background. Having a high contrast between foreground and background is particularly important to individuals who are visually impaired. It also addresses readability problems for individuals with color deficiencies (problems not addressed by the Color Coding provision in the NPRM).

We have some concern that 70% is too high a standard for use on all keyboards and controls. Lower values, however, cause problems in that they can be effective or ineffective depending on which end of the darkness scale they are on. We recommend that high contrast be added back in.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that contrast be included as a provision if good quantitative measures can be identified - or as an advisory if not.

EITAAC: 5.2.1.9.1 Provide at least one mode that minimizes the cognitive, and memory ability required of the user.

EITAAC: 5.2.1.10.1 Provide at least one mode that accommodates people with learning disabilities.

COMMENT: We were very concerned that the cognitive and learning disability requirements were removed from the guidelines. However, we were unable to think of any objective means for complying with these requirements, nor were we able to make specific recommendations for additional provisions that would address the unique needs of individuals with cognitive or learning disabilities. We believe that many of the existing provisions will lead to product features that will be of benefit to individuals with cognitive and learning disabilities.

We hope that those researchers, clinicians and technology developers who work closely with individuals with cognitive or learning disabilities were able to identify specific guidelines which could be included in the 508 regulations. We would highly recommend that these provisions be added to the guidelines, since this is an important dimension of disability.

If such measures have not been identified, we would still like to suggest that the issue of accommodating the needs of users with cognitive or learning disabilities be included in the guidelines on an advisory basis.

EITAAC: 5.2.2.2.1 Information and control needed for the real time operation of an E&IT (including equivalent access to control, output, alerts, icons, on-line help, and on-line documentation) shall be available to an external device in a cross-industry standard form that is easily and completely translatable into text. This form shall be available via a cross- industry standard port that does not require manipulation of a connector by the user.

DISCUSSION: This provision was provided in the EITAAC but was not included in the NPRM. The notation in the NPRM said the Board had not included those recommendations since compliant technology is still in development.

This provision is a very important for access to future technologies. However, without the market pull that this provision can provide, it is unlikely that it will be developed or deployed in time to be available to address the access issues that will result with next generation technologies.

The presence of this provision will both encourage broader industry participation in the industry forum that is currently working on this standard, and help to ensure that the access provisions of this standard are incorporated into the wireless control protocols that are already being developed and deployed. If we wait till the next round of the 508 updates, these new protocols will be established and it may be very difficult to get the changes needed for access. The time to do it is in the formulation stages of these protocols, not after they are established and deployed. Too often the disability community has been unable to get good access because access was only considered after the architecture and protocols are frozen.

RECOMMENDATION: That this provision be included in the 508 regulations, at least as an advisory.

EITAAC: 5.2.3.5 Including the contact method for obtaining the information required by this section, in general E&IT information.

COMMENT: The NPRM also did not include the above EITAAC guideline 5.2.3.5 which recommended that manufacturers include, in the general product information, information on how to obtain the accessible materials covered by this guidelines in this section related to documentation and support services. We feel that until all E&IT sales and support personnel are familiar with the accessibility features of products and the procedures for obtaining accessible documentation and training materials, it is important that a single point of contact be identified. This contact information should appear prominently in any materials provided with the product.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend restoring the provision which requires manufacturers to provide information on where to obtain accessible product information, documentation, and support services.

EITAAC: 5.2.3.6 Ensuring that any training provided (by manufacturers, providers or other parties) accommodates the functional capabilities of all participants. In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, consideration shall be given to the following factors: Accessibility needs of individuals with disabilities (as participants or trainers); Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities before and after training; Commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturers and provider's E&ITs; Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.

COMMENT: The topic of training was dropped from the NPRM. We recommend that it be reintroduced since it is such an important component for usability of newer E&IT.

RECOMMENDATION: Add an accessible Training provision back in similar to the EITAAC

EITAAC: 5.3.5.1.2 Digital video formats that are defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) shall use the specification EIA-708-A for closed captioning. (NOTE: By July 1, 1999 the FCC will initiate an NPRM on characteristics of Advanced Television Closed Captioning. The resulting rule may or may not be identical to EIA-708-A, and when issued should be incorporated into the E&IT guidelines.)

EITAAC: 5.3.5.1.3 Digital video disk (DVD) stored video shall use the EIA-608 specification.

EITAAC: 5.3.5.7 Digital television displays shall be equipped with ancillary audio playback capabilities as defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee.

The NPRM stated that advanced video format access was not included in the NPRM because it was still in formulation.

RECOMMENDATION: If Advanced video regulations come out of the regulatory process this summer, we suggest that this topic be added back in as a requirement. If standards are not finalized, we recommend that is be included as a recommendation.

NPRM: The advisory committee recommended other provisions that the Board did not include in this rule. For example, the committee considered methods for making a personal digital assistant (PDA), such as a "palmtop," accessible for a segment of people with disabilities. The Board has not included such a provision because the technology to make PDAs accessible does not exist at this time.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that PDAs not be included as a separate topic or requirement or category in the final rules. However, the discussion should be revised so that it does not say that they are omitted because they are not accessible. It should say that they are covered along with all other E&IT (or it should silent).

Part 3 - A Proposed Reorganization of the 508 Regulations

Per request, this section contains a proposed reorganization and representation of the 508 guidelines. In constructing this reorganization, we had five goals in mind

The 508 accessibility guideline problem is multi-facetted in that it deals with different degrees of disability that use different strategies (low vision versus blindness, hard of hearing versus deafness). It deals with different technologies. It deals with personal workstation versus shared public. It deals with hardware versus content (web pages, videotapes). As a result, it is not possible to organize the guidelines along any one of these without ending up with it not making sense along another. The NPRM began this process but still ended up with categories that put general guidelines next to component guidelines (which are also general in nature) next to application areas (e.g., telecom) next to technology types (web pages multi-media).

After the EITAAC had disbanded government agencies began to look carefully at how the 508 regulations would be implemented. Through this process and through discussions with government agencies, the field became more aware of the constraints on government processes and the impact it will have on implementing the guidelines. One thing that came to light was that rather than the 508 regulations being used as a high level guidance document from which purchasing agents would be able to create their own more specific checklists, etc., the federal acquisition regulation (FAR) process will require that the guidelines themselves play a more front line role. Checklists, etc., which might be used to help interpret the 508 guidelines, will not have the same force of law or regulation as the guidelines. As a result, purchasing agents and companies may use checklists to increase their awareness and understanding, but the actual compliance with the 508 would need to still be done against the 508 accessibility standards themselves - since the 508 standards are the only criteria that will have gone through the formal government approval process and they will be the items that are actually included in the FAR and the RFPs.

As a result, it is these regulations that government agencies will need to defend their actions against should they be sued. It is also these regulations (and not other checklists) that companies who want to protect a bid that they won will need to be addressing if a competitor decides to protest their winning of the contract. For these reasons, companies may use checklists, etc., internally to help understand opportunities and to communicate priorities. But the guidelines themselves will have to be what the companies and agencies come back to for final analysis.

The guidelines themselves, therefore, need to be very usable. It also needs to be clear when a manufacturer has have succeeded and when they have failed to meet a particular criterion. This is very difficult with this area.

Again, the current NPRM has moved forward in helping to organize items along these lines. However, in the process some items were modified or dropped from the EITAAC which would have helped in this regard. (Dropping some items has facilitated this process, so we are not advocating that all items be added back or changed back to the EITAAC.) However, adding a few back will facilitate usability of the final guidelines as noted below by making it clearer as to what is expected.

The goal of these new guidelines is to make them as directly usable and interpretable as possible for both agencies and companies trying to use them. Training courses can be used to help explain terminology and provide context and background. However, training courses cannot be used to put clarity back in if there is ambiguity in the guidelines themselves. Trainers, purchasing agents, and consultants are not empowered to interpret the guidelines beyond what is presented in the guidelines themselves in any way that would have a legal or reliable standing for companies or agencies should they find themselves defending their designs or decisions. This is a major concern of industry around the guidelines and the guidelines should be written to be as directly interpretable as possible.

Our discussions with representatives of industry indicate that one of the greatest concerns that industry has is their ability to innovate and continue to move forward with technology evolution. While industry is very interested in having guidelines that are easy to interpret and specific (so they can tell when they have complied), they are equally interested in having guidelines that are structured in such a fashion that it allows the maximum flexibility in terms of how they make their products accessible. If there are multiple or new ways of making their product accessible, they would like to be able to have the freedom to pursue them rather than needing to address accessibility in the ways that have worked best for older technologies.

For example, in the past, when one thinks about products being accessible, they are thought of as being accessible either directly or via some attachment to the product. Most information technology today is made accessible through attaching or loading software on to these IT products. In the future, if products are designed accordingly, it may be possible for anyone who wants a product to behave differently or to have a different interface, to have that interface automatically downloaded via the net to that product. If users do not have a custom interface, then a generic interface which would accommodate their needs could be used. As we move to the point where more and more (and perhaps someday all) devices will be connected to a network via wire, power cord, or wirelessly, these approaches may provide new opportunities for industry and consumers.

The guidelines need to be written in a fashion to allow this. Some of these are in the distant future while others are already emerging in the federal work place today. The guidelines need to be written in such a way that they both address access which will work with the workers today and the assistive technologies they have today and to also make sense for (and not constrain) new types of information technology and new approaches to building access into the technology environment which the products exist in.

In the proposed reorganization below, specific provisions are provided in the general requirements section whenever it clarifies what is needed to comply with the functional requirements without restricting flexibility in meeting the requirements. That is, only things that would be required (but not necessarily obvious) by the functional requirements have been added.

At the same time we have incorporated an important concept very explicitly throughout the guidelines that makes it easier to meet these guidelines for many technologies. Namely, that when meeting a requirement, it is permissible to include the capabilities of any assistive technology which would typically be present when a user who required speech output, was trying to use the technology. For example, today, that would mean when purchasing software for use by government employees at their own personal workstations; it would be safe to assume that the employee would have been provided with screen reading software. Therefore, if the application did provide all of its information necessary for its operation via speech when used with a type screen reader provided by the government to its employees, then the product would comply even though it did not specifically include the voice output capability itself.

This "compatible with AT that is present" approach also addresses another question often asked by industry and that is, "Which screen readers would I need to test my products with." With this approach the answer is straightforward: They would need to test it with whatever screen readers are being provided to federal employees for use in their workplace, (or would be provided to individuals to work with in the future) where the product will be used.

Because it is much easier to make products accessible using newer screen reader, it is quite possible that companies may offer to upgrade the screen readers of any employees (current or future hires) who would be using their product under a particular purchase. They would allow the company to be able to restrict their testing to the latest version of the screen reader. Although screen readers may be expensive to individuals or agencies purchasing them, their cost quickly fades to insignificance when averaged over the cost of software applied across all employees and when savings in terms of testing and the added capability of the new screen readers is involved.

This "compatible with AT that is present" approach also will not require a rewrite of the 508 guidelines as we move toward more networked IT environments and the ability to distribute access features via the network. In the future, it maybe possible for individuals to carry their access technologies with them wherever they go by simply having them present on the network. Then when they encounter information technology anywhere, they would be able to call up the alternate interface and use it wherever they are. The most they would ever have to take with them would be the physical aspect of the interface if there was one.

Already today there are feasibility demonstrations being presented for doing this type of thing both in connection with Sun's Jini and Microsoft's Universal Plug-n-Play

There are also employees, today, within the federal government who operate certain information technology entirely from their workstation. If all employees would typically operate a product via a network, then it would follow naturally from rules proposed here, that the product would be considered accessible if the person with a disability could access it via the network from their accessible workstation.

The proposed approach provides maximum flexibility for industry and allows full use of any and all assistive technologies at any time to meet any guideline where those assistive technologies will, in fact, be present. On the other hand, it prevents "compatibility with assistive technology" from being used to claim accessibility in those situations where a person with a disability would not have the assistive technology present or would not be able to connect it for security or other reasons. In those cases, the access would need to be built into the product (or the AT would need to be pre-installed). Of course, all equipment such as national security and military, etc., is exempt. Interestingly, however, these guidelines maybe useful to the military and to others who need to have equipment which can be operated under constrained environments since it will provide guidance in the design of products that can be operated when the operator's vision, hearing, or physical abilities are reduced for any reason.

One of the major issues that has been brought forward by different groups looking at 508 has been the ability of the 508 guidelines to be actually tested or for anyone in industry, or, in the government (or third parties) to be able to take a product and have it reliably reviewed against the guidelines. The goal, of course, would be that if ten people evaluated the product that the evaluations of at least the vast majority of them would agree.

Ensuring testability while maintaining flexibility is difficult. The NPRM 508 guidelines did a number of things to improve testability, however, a couple of other things that were done would make this more difficult. Gathering the design provisions together and separating them from the generic functional guidelines assisted in this process. In the process of doing this, a number of specific guidelines were dropped. Where these specific guidelines represented techniques for which there were alternate approaches, which could also be used, it was good that they were dropped. Dropping these techniques was helpful both in simplifying the guidelines and in making them more flexible.

In a couple of instances, however, items were dropped from the specific requirements because they were presumed to have been captured by the generic guidelines. In general, providing specific testable recommendations is better then leaving general performance guidelines without any specifics. In those cases where there is only one approach or one approach would be effective or acceptable, then that item should be included in the specific requirements. In that fashion, the specific technique can be tested beforehand rather than having testers rely on a more generic functional requirement below. It is much easier to verify that a particular technique has been done and then to assess its ability to meet the functional requirement than it is to assess products just based on the functional requirements.

For example, for products that present information in visual text, there really is no way of making a product meet the functional requirements without requiring that the information be available somehow in auditory form. Presenting the text in tactual form (e.g., braille) is a good technique but does not work for large numbers of individuals who are blind. Thus, although braille can be encouraged, it is not sufficient and therefore auditory presentation of the information would be required.

It is important to note that if there is an ambiguity in a rule which is in the design portion of the guidelines, then it is essential to provide qualifications to eliminate the ambiguity rather than to simply relegate it to the functional performance section. It should be resolved rather than dropping it and counting on it being picked up in the functional performance section otherwise it will make if very difficult for both purchasing agents and product design personnel who have much less background, experience, or mind share which they can devote to resolving these problems. The result will be erratic interpretation and an unnecessary amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. On the other hand, resolving ambiguities for a particular case example by providing an exception for that case, is not good. It should be resolved in a fashion which is generic in nature and would continue to apply as the types of technologies and interactions. That is, exceptions should not be made by list of specific items, but based upon principles which will survive technology evolution.

In putting together the guidelines below, we have tried to very carefully examine each word and how the words work together within a guideline to provide this type of robustness across technologies. Again, we picked up on a number of these in the 508 NPRM rewording and have carried those forward. Others are discussed under the specific items below.

Finally, after discussion with government agencies who will need to implement 508, we have become much more aware of the constraints and pressures that the agencies are under in regard to implementing the guidelines. We are, therefore, trying to structure them in a fashion which would facilitate implementation as much as possible. Specifically, we've tried to facilitate implementation in the following ways.

Everyone from industry to the agencies would love a checklist. Yet they understand that the guidelines and constraints do not lend themselves to checklists without restricting the ability of industry to innovate and address new technologies. We have, however, tried to structure and word the guidelines in a fashion which makes them as "checklist-like" as possible. The overall guidelines are now divided into three major parts: 1) The general guidelines which cover rules that would be applied to all technologies, 2) Web technologies and 3) The functional performance criterion.

In implementation people would apply the general guidelines and web guidelines as applicable They would then check to see whether or not anything else needed to be done in order to create a product with integrated features that would meet the functional performance criteria.

At all points in the process, individuals would be able to take into account assistive technology which would be typically available to people with disabilities in the environment and location where they would encounter the product. Thus, assistive technology could be applied to meet any and all of the requirements but only when it would be present when and where the person wanted to operate the product.

The rules in the proposed reorganization have been constructed so that they do not conflict with each other. When applying them therefore, the complication of rules overriding other rules has been eliminated.

Walk Through of Proposed Restructuring of the 508 Guidelines

The proposed restructuring of the Standard is presented below on a provision-by-provision basis. Each provision is presented followed by a discussion related to that provision.

NOTE: For ease in searching, and to distinguish them from the previous comments, all of the reference numbers in the proposed restructuring have been changed from 1190 something to 2190 something. For example 1194 is changed to 2194. We have also changed the key word before each item from ITEM to PROVISION for this section.

Proposed Restructured Guidelines

To these we add a very important 5 provision (e) This provision allows the accessibility of products to be evaluated across all the requirements based on the presence of any assistive technology (but only that assistive technology) that would be present when the user encountered the product. This is a very important capability for personal workstations today and will open up new opportunities for access to future technologies.

(e) When evaluating the ability of products to meet individual accessibility standards, the products can be evaluated in conjunction with any assistive technology which would, under ordinary circumstances, be present at the time and location that individuals with disabilities would want to operate the product. If product types could be used in different locations and under different conditions, (such as a personal computer which could be used in a personal workstation or public kiosk) then the evaluation shall be based on the location and application for which the product is being purchased. Compatibility with assistive technology shall not be considered when evaluating the accessibility of equipment where users will not have the assistive technology when they use the product.

NOTE: When hardware or software can be purchased for either personal workstations or for public use the rule should apply to the equipment for the environment for which it is being purchased, not based on the fact that the equipment might later be used in some other way. This approach does allow for the potential of abuse. But anything tight enough to be abuse-proof would be too strict to be usable

Alternate formats. - - Same except that "accessible Internet programming or coding languages is changed to " accessible internet formats" so that it reads:

"Alternate formats usable by people with disabilities may include, but are not limited to, braille, ASCII text, large print, recorded audio, and accessible Internet formats.

Alternate modes. - Change the word MODES to METHODS so that it is not confused with Operating Modes as in "at least one mode of operation and information presentation "

Alternate methods. - Different means of providing information, including product documentation, to people with disabilities. Alternate methods may include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, relay service, TTY, Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and audio description.

Operable components. - Same except to use the words "input and output" instead of paper in the term "paper trays"

A component of a product that requires physical contact for normal operation. Operable components include, but are not limited to, mechanically operated controls, input and output trays, card slots, keyboards, or keypads.

TTY. - Same except to add the word Baudot to make it clear that TTY relates to the traditional TTY and not all related technologies.

An abbreviation for teletypewriter. Machinery or equipment that employs interactive text based communications through the transmission of Baudot coded signals across the telephone network. TTYs may include, for example, devices known as TDDs (telecommunication display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf persons) or computers with special modems. TTYs are also called text telephones.

This is a very important term that was not otherwise defined in the rule. It is important that it be defined since interpretation of this term has included interpretations that excluded adding any other output forms than are currently on the product. Without this definition it is possible to exempt a product from the standards when it is both possible to comply, not an undue burden, and wouldn't involve changing any significant part of the products original function or mission.

"Fundamental alteration: A fundamental alteration is a change to a product which causes the product to be unable to carry out its primary mission or function or prevents the product from operating in its original manner. Adding an alternative presentation mode or operating mode shall not in itself constitute a fundamental alteration unless it meaningfully interferes with the original functionality, features, or operating modes of the product."

DISCUSSION: We decided to use the term operable elements to group all of the provisions that had to do with operable parts, interfaces, and controls. The phrase "controls, keyboards, and keypads" left out many aspects of a product which might be important to its operation . For example, the ability to open a laptop or to insert one's identity card may or may not be thought of as a control.

We thought of using operable parts as it is used in the ADAAG, but because items covered in this section are slightly different in character than the ADAAG, we felt that the word "operable elements" was more appropriate. A number of provisions in this section are integrally related to software and an operable element will make more sense to software people where operable parts seem to imply something physical which might not involve them. Finally the word "elements" also provides a parallel with terms "timing elements", "visual elements", "audio elements" etc., (which we decided to use as the section headings in our reorganization) where "parts" did not fit.

(A) (1) At least one mode shall be provided where all functionality of the product can be achieved using operating mechanisms which are tactually discernable without activation.

ADVISORY: Operable mechanisms should also be visually discernable from their background. A dark edge or dark gap of sufficient width between buttons or around a button can also serve this purpose.

DISCUSSION: This is based on the similar item from the NPRM. There are several important aspects to this provision,however, that differ from the NPRM:

We also suggest that the concept of an advisory be introduced. An advisory is a recommendation rather than a requirement. Advisories could be used to provide recommendations that can serve as effective access strategies in certain situations. Advisories would not be required because they cannot be applied to all E&IT.

In this case, we inserted an advisory that operating mechanisms should also be visually discernable from the background. Individuals who can see, even if their vision is limited, usually rely heavily on their vision. Operating mechanisms which are tactilely discernable but which have no contrast at all with their background are often missed by individuals with low vision because they don't feel for controls in areas where they cannot see anything. It is also much faster and easier for individuals with low vision to operate devices where they can see a slot or a button or a lever and can, therefore, reach directly to operate it. We note that a dark outline or even a dark gap between keys can be sufficient for this purpose.

(A) (2) There shall be at least one mode of operation and input that does not require user speech to operate controls.

DISCUSSION: The functional performance requirements require that products be operable without speech. However, the NPRM did not have any requirements in the general or component specific requirement sections that addressed this issue. This guideline is added, therefore, to address at least the speech control portion of that functional performance requirement. Basically, this provision requires that all products that are operable via speech be operable in at least some other fashion that does not require user speech. This is important for people with any type of speech disability as well as individuals who do not speak because of deafness or whose speech would not be recognized using current or near future speech recognition algorithms. Today, finding systems which do not rely solely on speech for control is not hard to do since speech recognition is so unreliable. A backup mechanism is always provided. However, as speech recognition improves, the temptation to rely on speech input will escalate significantly. It is important that an alternative always be available for those without speech or whose speech is not good enough.

(A) (3) The status of all locking or toggle controls or keys shall be visually discernible, and discernible either through touch or sound.

(A) (4) At least one complete set of operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, twisting of the wrist, fine motor control, or simultaneous actions. The force required to activate controls shall be 5 lbs. (22.2 N) maximum

DISCUSSION: This provision is the same as the NPRM except that we added fine motor control and simultaneous action to the text.

Fine motor control and simultaneous actions are address in the functional performance criteria but were not listed elsewhere in the general or component specific requirements even though they are fairly specific.

Simultaneous action is added even though one hand operation is stated, since there are numbers of one-handed chordic systems where multiple keys are pressed simultaneously. These systems would not be operable by people with artificial hands, head sticks, mouth sticks, or anyone who uses a stylus to operate controls.

NOTE: We also note that 5 lbs seems to be a lot for activating controls on E&IT. We do not have another specific number however.

(A) (5) Products which have physical keyboards and software which supports a keyboard shall comply with the following

DISCUSSION: The provisions that dealt with keyboards only were gathered together here. There are a number of provisions that deal with keyboards that do not necessarily apply to keypads or other types of controls. For example, it makes sense to say that any product with a physical keyboard should be entirely operable from the keyboard (or at least all software controlled elements should be). But the same cannot be said for a keypad. It makes sense on some products but not others and keypad operation should therefore not be required. As mentioned earlier, the most obvious example of this is the business telephone where it shouldn't be necessary to make the entire phone operable from the keypad. (Note that provision (A) (1) requires the product to be completely operable from tactilely discernable controls)

In our wording we also note that these provisions need to apply not only to products that have a keyboard but also to software products that are designed to support a keyboard. That is, a software product that uses a keyboard should be fully operable from the keyboard and not require the use of a mouse or something else for its operation.

(A) (5) (A) All software/firmware operable actions available or required by the product shall be operable from the keyboard

DISCUSSION: This provision is a slightly modified version or the provision in the NPRM.

First, the words "software/firmware operable" have been inserted in front of the word actions since it is not possible to activate mechanical functions which are not under software control from the keyboard.

Secondly, the phrase "available from the keyboard" was changed to be "operable from the keyboard".

Finally, as noted above, this provision has been restricted to keyboards and does not require that all products with a keypad also meet this provision.

(A) (5) (B) If keyboard repeat is supported, the keyboard delay before repeat shall be adjustable to at least 2 seconds. Key repeat rate shall be adjustable to 2 seconds per character.

(A) (5) (C) If interface elements are provided on a display, then logical navigation among interface elements and operation of the elements shall be provided by use of keystrokes.

First this provision has been restricted to only apply to those interface elements which appear on a display. Without this restriction, this provision would require that indicators (e.g. LEDs) be placed on mechanical controls so that they could be tabbed to and controlled from the keyboard. This guideline was written with display based controls in mind but the original wording did not reflect this. NOTE: Previously, this provision was included in the "non-embedded software" section, so the presence of a display may have been assumed. However it still needs to be stated explicitly since even PC's are gaining extra buttons and controls that are not on screen.

The second change simply states that the person should be able to both navigate among the interface elements and operate them.

(A) (6) Products which are freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be used in one location and which have operable components shall comply with the following:

DISCUSSION: No changes were made to this provision - or to any of its four subcomponents.

(A) (7) At least one mode shall be provided which a) does not require users to respond or read within a timed interval or b) allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to at least 5 times the default setting, or c) offers the user the opportunity to extend their time and allows at least 10 seconds to respond to the offer.

DISCUSSION: Two content changes have been made to this provision from the NPRM.

First, the word "read" has been added so the provision now states that a mode needs to be provided which does not require the user to "respond or read" within a timed interval.

Secondly, a third general approach for addressing this issue was added: providing the user with an opportunity to extend the time rather than simply make it five times longer.

We then made two editorial changes. One, we removed the phrase "If a timed response is required," since it is not clear if giving people enough time to read would be considered a timed response and if no timed response is required, then the product would automatically comply with the provision anyway. The other small editorial change was to break the provision into parts labeled a, b, c, to make it easier to read.

DISCUSSION: We grouped all of the provisions that had to do with the visual aspects of a product and making the visual information accessible under this subgroup heading.

(B) (1) Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

(B) (2) At least one mode of operation that provides high contrast between text or symbols and background shall be provided.

This provision was in the EITAAC report but was not included in the NPRM. We have included it here because it is one of the primary problems encountered by individuals with low vision when reading text.

This provision also covers the second aspect of color blindness, The previous provision on color coding covers situations where information is actually encoded in color. However, the second problem that individuals with color blindness face is that if there is not sufficient contrast between the figure and the background it is possible that the text is no longer discriminable from the background. If sufficient contrast is maintained, then even if the colors change (that is the hue and intensity changes), the figure in the background remains visible.

For these two reasons (low vision and color deficiencies) this contrast provision has been included.

(B) (3) If interactive interface elements are provided on a display, a well-defined, high visibility, on-screen indication of the current focus shall be provided that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus changes.

DISCUSSION: In the NPRM this provision applied only to non-embedded software applications and operating systems. However, the NPRM version actually consisted of two parts, one of which was very important for all applications even if they have embedded software. We have divided it into two parts therefore and moved one of them up to this section where it would apply to all systems.

The two parts are: 1) the need for a highly visible focus that would move around on-screen if there are interface elements on screen. And 2) the need for the focus to be programmatically exposed to software assistive technology.

Part 1 was moved to this general section because without a highly visible on-screen indication of focus it is difficult to provide any access from the keyboard in a fashion that could be used effectively by people with physical or low vision disabilities. We, therefore, split this provision into two parts moving the first one up to general applicability and leaving the other where it was in the NPRM.

We have added the phrase "If interactive interface elements are provided on a display, then there shall be, etc" so that this provision would apply whenever it was needed but not elsewhere.

(B) (4) If animated or moving text is provided on a device with user controls, it shall also be displayable in at least one static presentation mode at the option of the user.

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the provision in the NPRM except that it previously only applied to non-embedded software. Again, access to moving text is a problem that exists on systems with embedded and non-embedded software. It also exists on systems where the software is embedded but it's embedded on an operating system which is completely invisible to the user and not supported by an assistive technology. In those cases it is technically a non-embedded software system running on an operating system but (since there are no AT vendors addressing the operating system, it is for all practical purposes an embedded system).

(B) (5) All information provided visually by the product and all information required for use of the product shall be available in auditory or tactile form without relying on the use of braille.

NOTE: Braille is a powerful access technique for those that know it and it is highly encouraged. It is only used by approx 10% of those who are blind however, so it is not a general solution for people who are blind.

NOTE: Per 2194.2(e) if users who require access via speech output would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT then the ability of the product to provide audio access to visual information can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

DISCUSSION: This provision is a key example of an entire area of accessibility which was required in the functional performance criteria but not represented at all in the general or component specific requirements. The issue of access by people who are blind or otherwise unable to read printed text on personal computers was covered extensively by a large number of specific provision in sections 2194.21, 2194.23, and 2194.25. However, provisions that would apply to other types of E&IT where screen readers were not present were not carried forward from the EITAAC report.

In order to make these guidelines more usable and interpretable to people creating these other types of E&IT, we added this provision back into the standards.

There are two things to note about this provision. First, that this provision allows for the use of any assistive technology which would be present. Thus, in requiring auditory access it does not require that it be built into any product where a screen reader or other assistive technology, which would provide this functionality, would already be present.

Secondly, this provision does not restrict the options of industry. This provision provides specifics on how to comply with the Functional Performance Criterion but does not limit options beyond what is already required by the Functional Performance Criterion. There are no options for providing information to individual who cannot see and do not know braille in any form besides those specified here.

(B) (6) Where audio and large print modes are provided it shall be possible for them to work together.

[NOTE TO ADVISORY BOARD: It should NOT be required that they work separately since the standard mode of operation for a product may be to show both audio and visual displays at all times to all users].

DISCUSSION: This provision addresses another case where an access issue was only covered under the NPRM's functional performance criteria and not by any general or component specific requirements. We have removed this topic from the functional performance criteria where it was a clause attached to a general Functional Performance Criteria, and we have created a new provision in the general requirements section. This does not increase its applicability but puts it more where you would expect to find detail.

Note: We also changed the provision to say that the audio and large print modes need to be made to work together. We removed the requirement that they also be operable separately.

(B) (7) ADVISORY: At least one mode of operation that displays text(including display of labels on request) in 3/16 (4.8 mm) sans serif font is desirable where possible.

DISCUSSION: One of the things that was recommended in the EITAAC report that was not included in the NPRM, is a requirement for large font size, etc. Whereas, we don't believe that it is possible to require large print on all products since products are often very small. We do think that it is possible on such a wide range of products that it should be at least included in the NPRM as an advisory. Even the world's smallest cell phone currently has a display whose characters meet the Access Board's definition for large print on ATMs which was 3/16" or 4.8 mm san serif. On many of these products it is also possible to have the labels on keys appear on the display and spoken on request of the user. This would allow users to explore buttons which have very small lettering on the buttons.

Because this provision is so important and yet cannot be required on everything, we suggest it be included as an advisory.

DISCUSSION: Provisions relating to auditory elements or access to auditory information are grouped here.

(C) (1) Where products deliver recorded or synthetic speech output through a speaker or device held up to the ear, incremental volume control shall be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable.

EXCEPTION: Products purchased for use in personal work areas, that have a headphone or headset jack shall not be required to meet this guideline

DISCUSSION: This is another example where an access issues, in this case enhanced audio, was addressed in the functional performance criteria but nothing is provide in the general requirements to interpret how this should be done or what was expected.

This provision, therefore, was changed from being applicable only to kiosks to being generally applicable to all E&IT as it was in the EITAAC report.

This item is based on the NPRM version with three editorial changes and one important exception.

(C) (2) All information provided in auditory form by the product and required for full use of the product shall be available in visual form.

NOTE: Braille is a powerful access technique for those that know it and it is highly encouraged. It is only used by approx 10% of those who are blind however, so it is not a general solution for people who are blind.

NOTE: Per 2194.2(e), if users who require access via speech output would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT then the ability of the product to provide audio access to visual information can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

DISCUSSION: This is the last of three provisions included to address an issue that was required in the functional performance criteria but not reflected anywhere in the general or component specific requirements. In the original NPRM, the only provisions which addressed access to E&IT by people who are deaf were in the telecommunication area. As audio is increasingly being used in E&IT as a presentation mode, it is important that provisions that address access by individuals who are deaf be included in the general requirements.

This provision requires that all of the auditory information that is provided by the product and needed for full operation of the product, be available in visual form. A product would have to present any visual equivalents that were passed to it along with corresponding auditory information. This rule does not require that the device generate a visual equivalent to audio information. That is, the rule does not require that a stereo or telephone or loudspeaker generate captions for auditory signals that are sent to it. If however, a stereo, telephone or loudspeaker generates auditory information (speech or otherwise) rather than pass it through, it would be required to present a visual equivalent to the user.

A note is attached to this provision reminding the reader of the assistive technology clause. Again, it is felt that this note is helpful to include on a couple of these provisions even though it applies to all of them. This note might be something that is left out of the formal regulations since it can very easily be included in technical support documentation without changing or further interpreting the standards. The note, therefore, is also in the category of not required but helpful. However, it will ease implementation and calm knee jerk reactions, especially from individuals who quote the requirement out of context.

(C) (3) When speech output is provided for access it shall be possible to interrupt it

DISCUSSION: In the NPRM this provision was included in the component specific requirements for ITMs. However, it needs to apply to any device which uses speech as part of an access strategy. It should not be constrained to only those occasions where speech is used on an ITM. It has, therefore, been move to the general category.

DISCUSSION: The term animation was added to this category since increasingly we are seeing computer animation being used instead of what might be called multi-media. Although one could classically say that computer animation is a subset of multi-media, the use of the terms in industry differs and so we suggest that the three terms, video, multi-media and animation, be used in the title to capture all of the intended audience.

(D) (1) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain speech or other audio necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed captioned if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with hearing impairments.

(D) (2) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain visual information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be audio described if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with visual impairments

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM and is located under the same title as the NPRM.

(D) (3) Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM and is located under the same title as the NPRM.

(D) (4) All television displays and projectors 13 inches and larger, and computer equipment that includes television receiver circuitry or accepts NTSC input, shall be equipped with caption decoder circuitry which appropriately receives, decodes, and displays closed captions from broadcast, cable, videotape, and DVD signals.

We have made only one edit. After the phrase "receiver circuitry" we added the phrase "or accepts NTSC input".

This phrase was added to remove an ambiguity that has exists in the current provision. A common question that is posed to us is whether the need to include a closed caption decoder applies only to devices with tuners in them or to any device which can be used to display a videotape. Since the provision requires that all videotapes have closed captions and such videotape materials are rarely presented to groups of individuals on television sets (with receivers), it seems the intention of the EITAAC was that anything that presented movies from an NTSC signal (where closed captions would be encoded) should be able to decode and present those captions. As we know, the circuitry to do so nowadays is extremely minimal. It was believed that this was also the intent of the NPRM but it was not clear. We, therefore, suggest adding the phrase "or accepts NTSC input" so that all devices which present video signals with closed captions embedded in them, would at the user's option decode the captions and display them.

(D) (2) Television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry.

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM and is located under the same title as the NPRM.

DISCUSSION: Telecommunication is already defined in the Telecommunications Act as involving only technologies which are connected to the public switch telephone network. Even though the definition included in this NPRM is broader and applies to even communications over closed intercom systems, the derivation of that definition is the Telecommunications Act and people are likely to interpret the term "telecommunication" to only legally apply to those devices which are connected to the public switch telephone network. To avoid this problem we have titled this section communication and telecommunication functions.

It is important that this recategorization be done so that closed circuit communication systems are included in the 508 regulations. For example, there are intercom systems that look and operate just like telephones but which would not have these important volume level regulations apply. There are communication systems for building access which should also be similarly accessible.

Some provisions, however, make more sense if they are restricted to public switch telephone systems, particularly those related to TTY compatibility. We've titled this section Communication and Telecommunication Functions but framed some of the individual provisions as communication and some as telecommunication.

(E) (1) Where a product delivers output by an audio output device which is normally held up to the ear, a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing technologies shall be provided except where all information is also provided visually

DISCUSSION: The word telecommunication has been removed from this provision. This provision would then apply to general devices used to communicate. This would not apply to intercoms or other devices that are not held up to the ear. However, it would apply to any intercoms or communication systems such as those at front doors, in elevators, or intercoms that look like and behave like telephones.

(E) (2) For transmitted voice signals, products shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB. For incremental volume control, at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM except that the word telecommunications has been removed so that it will apply to all products that involve the transmission of voice. This seems appropriate since it basically request that all products including intercoms provide reasonable gain. This gain level is nominal.

(E) (3) If the telecommunications product allows a user to adjust the receive volume, a function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use but not before. Unless the volume can exceed 120 dB SPL, the reset function shall be a user option on non-public devices.

DISCUSSION: The first sentence is [essentially] identical to the NPRM. A second sentence was added to allow the feature to be turned off on personal phones or where the high volume would not be a danger. This was done because it would be very onerous if all telephones were required to automatically reset their volume every time they were used.

In the original EITAAC this was only required if the volume exceeded 120 db, which is at the pain threshold. Requiring phones to reset at any volume would result in substantial negative feedback from all users with any degree of loss who simply turn their phones up a bit and find that it would reset every time they used it.

(E) (4) Telecommunications products which provide a function allowing voice communication and which do not themselves provide a TTY functionality shall provide a standard non-acoustic connection point for TTYs. It shall also be possible for the user to easily turn any microphone on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with TTY use.

(E) (5) Telecommunications products which include voice communication functionality shall support use of all cross-manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs.

(E) (6) Where provided, caller identification and similar telecommunications functions shall also be available for users of TTYs, telecommunications relay services, and for users who cannot see displays.

PROVISION (E) (7)Voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall be usable by TTY users directly with their TTYs and via TRS operators including the ability of the TRS operators to repeat and pause messages so that the operators can keep up with the recording.

DISCUSSION: The language and coverage here is the same as in the NPRM except that the end of the provision has been edited to include the language "directly with their TTYs and via TRS operators, including the ability for the TRS operators to repeat and pause the message so that they can keep up with the recording.

This is a very severe problem at the current time. The inability to pause the messages causes TRS operators to fall behind and to mistype or truncate content.

(E) (8) Voice mail, messaging, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall provide at least one mode which allows users to repeat messages and does not require users to respond within a timed interval or allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to a minimum of 5 times the default or offers the user an option to extend their time and provides as least 10 seconds to respond to the offer.

DISCUSSION: This is a condensation of one of the provisions in the telecommunication section. It included requirements for timing which were essentially redundant with the timing recommendations in general requirements section. The original NPRM provision did not, however, include the providing the user with the ability to repeat messages . That requirement has, therefore, been added here.

DISCUSSION: In this section we bring together all of the provisions that deal with issues arising from the biological differences between an individual with disabilities and people who do not have disabilities. Again, the rationale for doing this is that we are rapidly developing technologies that are going to combine the biological and technical worlds. This will start with biologically activated circuits (such as capacitive touchscreens and buttons) and extend into biological identification and eventually biologically linked interfaces. By bringing these provisions together it highlights this growing area and the fact that people with disabilities may differ biologically from the stereotypical individual that designers are creating products for. Thus, the guidelines point out the key areas many are not currently aware of and also lay the groundwork for awareness of this as an issue so that problems can be avoided in new technology areas that we are not aware of.

(F) (1) Where biometric forms of user identification or activation are used, an alternative form of identification or activation, which does not require the user to possess particular biological characteristics, shall also be provided.

DISCUSSION: This is identical to the NPRM. Our discussion about this topic is already presented in the provision-by-provision review of the NPRM.

(F) (2) Where touchscreens or touch-operated controls are used, such controls shall be operable without requiring body contact or close human body proximity, or all of the operations and functions that are available through such controls shall be made available through an alternate mode that does not require body contact or close human body proximity

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM's. It was in the general requirement section in the NPRM as well as it is here.

(F) (3) When flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements are displayed, any flash rate shall be 3 Hz or below or 55 Hz and above.

DISCUSSION: This provision was in the general section of the NPRM as it is here. We have suggested the following modifications to it, however:

DISCUSSION: The provisions in this category were gathered from a number of places. They all deal not with providing access but with not interfering with access that is already there. Although each one appears to apply to a particular category of devices, as we look at them, we find that with the converging technologies manifestations of them appear in the other technical areas as well. They were, therefore, gathered together under the title of non-interference with existing access technologies in order to both highlight the topic of non-interference and to have these provisions thought about as they might apply across technologies.

(G) (1) Interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) shall be reduced to the lowest possible level to allow a user of hearing technologies to utilize the product.

DISCUSSION: This topic is normally though of in conjunction with telecommunication products, particularly mobile technologies. However, increasingly individuals are finding that other types of E&IT can also interfere with hearing aids. As wireless networks replace wired networks in offices and people incorporate other directed and defuse radio technologies into the environment, it is important that interference with hearing technologies be considered during the early developmental stages. . The wording of the provision itself is identical to the NPRM's.

PROVISION (G) (2) Operating system software shall not interfere with assistive technology

DISCUSSION: This provision was previously under compatibility with assistive technology so it is in, essentially, the same category under the new guidelines. The provision itself is identical to the NPRM's.

(G) (3) Software shall not interfere with existing features of other products or operating systems that affect the usability for people with disabilities.

DISCUSSION: This provision was previously in the non-embedded software section. However, this requirement should also apply to of software that can be found on information appliances and other systems which are either actually embedded systems or which are indistinguishable from embedded systems. As a result, it has been moved to reflect its general applicability and to get the additional emphasis of being in a section on interference. The wording for this provision is identical to the NPRM's.

PROVISION (G) (4) An option shall be provided to ignore individual application or document display attributes so system-wide settings will be maintained

DISCUSSION: This provision has been moved to the interference section for the same basic reason as previous provision. The wording for this provision is identical to the NPRM's except for the added phrase "or document" to prevent programs from allowing users to overrule font and color settings etc. in a document.

(G) (5) All products that act as a transport or conduit for information or communication shall pass through cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary, industry-standard codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to provide the information or communication in a usable format. Technologies which use encoding, signal compression, format transformation, or similar techniques shall not remove information needed for access or shall restore it upon delivery.

DISCUSSION: This provision was previously under the section on compatibility with assistive technology in the NPRM and is, therefore, in essentially the same category now. The wording for this provision is identical to the NPRM's.

DISCUSSION: In a number of places, specific provisions were included which were essentially assistive technology compatibility requirements. Those provisions have been gathered together in this section.

(H) (1) For all E&IT where it is possible to install and run software assistive technology the following shall apply:

Since the definition of embedded and non-embedded software is getting increasingly blurred, we have moved away from that specific language. Also, in environments where for some reason it is not possible install and run software based assistive technologies (such as ATMs) it would not make sense to build these hooks in since there would be nothing for them to hook to.

(H) (1) (A) The input/control focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.

DISCUSSION: This is essentially identical to the provision in the NPRM except that the phrase "input/control" has been added in front of the word focus for clarity.

(H) (1) (B) Sufficient information about a user interface element including the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology.

(H) (1) (C) Where an image represents an interface element or the state of an interface element, there must be a way for assistive technology to associate meaningful text with the image.

(H) (1) (D) Text shall be provided through an application programming interface supporting interaction with assistive technology or use system text writing tools. The minimum information that shall be available to assistive technology is text content, text input caret location, text selection, and text attributes.

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM except that text selection is added.

(H) (1) (E) Electronic forms shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form including all directions and cues. Inaccessible electronic forms may be used, if an alternative accessible electronic form with equivalent information, field elements, and functionality is also provided

(H) (1) (F) ADVISORY: The default use of icons should be consistent throughout an application

DISCUSSION: This provision is identical to the NPRM except images was changed to icons since that is what is described in the text and what works with screen readers. It has also been changed to default icons to allow users to change the meanings if they so choose.

It has been changed from a requirement to an advisory since it does put constraints not only on the manufacturer but also on users who may want to use a similar icon for different applications. In addition, this strategy is described as being something that was being done for compatibility with screen readers so that the screen reader could attach text to the icon. Since the standards already require that all of the icons have text associated with them that is readable by the assistive technology, this would appear to be redundant and is, therefore, made advisory. It is retained in an advisory capacity because it is useful to people with very old screen readers (although they would have difficulty in accessing so much else, it is questionable that they should be upgraded.) It is also of assistance to individuals with cognitive disabilities and is generally good human interface design.

DISCUSSION: This section is similar to the previous section titled, " Compatibility with Software Assistive Technologies". As noted above, we have separated assistive technology which can operate entirely externally from that which must also include internal software support. We also move the compatibility requirements into the general requirements. This was done to indicate that compatibility was something that needed to be addressed for all products except as qualified in the individual provision. In the NPRM, there was somewhat of an implication that the compatibility guidelines were not general requirements that need to always be applied.

(i) (1) Products providing auditory output shall provide the auditory signal at a standard signal level through an industry standard connector. Auditory cut off of speaker shall be available to allow the user to listen privately.

EXCEPTION: Products which produce only simple non-speech sounds which are already presented in equivalent visual form or decorative sounds that convey no information shall not be required to have such a connector.

The second sentence includes the "private listening" provision which in the NPRM was limited to ITMs and kiosks. However, there is no real reason to restrict private listening to ITMs and Kiosks. The provision requiring the headphone jack was already required of all products. The ability to listen privately and to not disturb others is important in many work environments. It is often desirable or necessary to turn off the speaker so that the volume can be turned up for a user. In fact, most headphone jacks work this way by default.

An exception is provided which was not available in the original NPRM. There are devices such as a simple pager which emits a beeping sound which is also available visually and usually tactilely. There may be other devices such as a fax machines or a printers that only emit a beeping sound. If these products provide a visual indication of the fact that there is an error condition, then we do not see why there would be a need to install a headphone jack on the device. There also may products which only present decorative sounds that do not convey information and are not related to operation of the product.

We also added an advisory that a 2.5 or 3.5 mm jack would be acceptable. This advisory was added because it is of benefit both to industry and to consumers to include the specificity.

For industry it is helpful because it limits the number of different formats they would need to support. For example, if other audio connection standards exist, they do not need to support them. It states clearly that either one of these two could be used and would be sufficient. Also, since it is an advisory, it does not limit industry's ability to innovate at some time in the future.

For consumers it means that if they used an assistive listening device with a standard 3.5 or 2.5 adapter, it increases the probability that they would be able to access the different E&IT as they encounter them.

(i) (2) For technologies where a standard exists and is supported by assistive technologies, information and control needed for the real time operation of an E&IT (including equivalent access to control, output, alerts, on-line help, and on-line documentation) shall be available to an external device in a cross-industry standard form that is easily and completely translatable into text. This form shall be available via a cross- industry standard port that does not require manipulation of a connector by the user.

DISCUSSION: This is a provision that was provided in the EITAAC but which was not included in the NPRM. The notation in the NPRM said the Board had not included those recommendations since compliant technology is still in development.

At this time the technology has been implemented and industry standard connection standards exist. The cross industry form that is translatable into text does not yet exist. However, many of the items specified in this standard do not currently exist in products today nor will they when these standards are released. This provision is a very important for access to future technologies. However, without the market pull that this provision can provide, it is unlikely that it will be developed or deployed in time to be available to address the access issues that will result with next generation technologies.

As it has been reworded, it is not required that any company to comply until such time as it exists and is supported by assistive technologies. At that time, it would come into play as an essential tool in interfacing with sealed appliance like information technologies.

(i) (3) ADVISORY: Where standard ports are available and can be used to meet a product's requirements, standard ports shall be available and/or an adapter which would convert the proprietary port to the standard port shall be available.

DISCUSSION: Whereas, it is very helpful to have standard slots available on products, requiring that expansion slots be a standard is overly constraining. Although it was very useful for the connection of assistive technology to PC in the past, relatively few assistive technologies still use PC slots and there is movement in the technology field in general to connection via universal serial bus. Also, for all other technologies besides PC's there are few if any assistive technologies that connect to expansion slots on devices. Business telephones, laptop docking stations, and copiers are just three examples of products which have expansion slots or connectors which are used to add additional functions and features to their product. The laptop uses it to add additional ports. The telephone uses it to add additional buttons and functions. The copier uses it to add additional functionality such as collating and stapling. Requiring that these makers of these products use industry standard connectors would not seem to advance the ability to make these products accessible.

Even requiring a standard connector is problematic. If a wristwatch PC needs to have a serial port, it would find be impossible to use a standard serial connector. Although, this could be a claim for consideration under the fundamental alteration clause, there are other computers where it might be possible to put a connector, but would be much better to use a custom connector with an adapter to a standard connection.

Because of the uncertainty as to how this would be applied to the wide variety of E&IT and because it is not clear what is meant by a connector of each type when there is no classification scheme for the different types of connectors, it is recommended that this provision included as an advisory rather than as a requirement.

We have placed the provisions relating to web based technologies in a separate section from the general requirements. We had tried to see if there was a way of integrating these provisions directly into the regular general requirements since it seemed logical that they should be treated in the same way as other functions like telecommunication, etc. However, the web technologies are so important and present their own characteristics that we were unable to see how they could be handled except as a separate category.

In order to facilitate international harmonization, we also adopted the approach of citing the guidelines and then mentioning any exceptions and adding any items which would be in addition. To simplify the process for those following the 508 standards, the WCAG guideline checkpoints were included in the appendix.

Although we would suggest that all the WCAG guidelines, including 14.1, be included, we have shown 14.1 as an advisory. We have listed it as an advisory for the same reason the cognitive aspects are treated as an advisory below (and because they were removed from the NPRM). We would prefer that they be added back, but show it as an advisory to show how that might be done.

We also included reference to the authoring tools guidelines and the user agent guidelines. As with the web content guidelines, we suggest requiring priority one and leaving priority two items as an advisory. This would provide for maximum accessibility while still leaving industry with the most flexibility in compliance

(1) Web software shall comply with 2194.21 (General Requirements) and 2194.27 (Functional Performance Criterion)

(2) Web content shall comply with Priority 1 checkpoints of the WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 [with the exception of checkpoint 14.1 of WCAG 1.0 which should be advisory], as listed in Appendix A of this standard

(3) An appropriate method shall be used to facilitate the easy tracking of page content that provides users of assistive technology the option to skip repetitive navigation links.

(4) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI WCAG 1.0 also be complied with wherever possible

(5) Authoring Tools shall comply with Priority 1 items from the W3C WAI Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0.

(6) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0 be complied with wherever possible.

(7) User Agents shall comply with Priority 1 items from the W3C WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0.

(8) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0 be complied with wherever possible.

DISCUSSION: The language in this section is based on the language of the NPRM with several important differences. These differences are discussed once here and then just referred to in the individual provision reviews which immediately follow.

Like the NPRM, these proposed criteria recognize that assistive technology should be allowed to be a part of the solutions when determining a product's accessibility. However, instead of attaching the assistive technology clause to the end of each functional performance guideline, we have included it as an overall principle: namely that "the assistive technology can be considered when evaluating the accessibility of a product if the assistive technology would be present when the user came to the product to use it." In this manner, the products accessibility can be assessed with appropriate and available assistive technology(s) in place. This approach solves several problems:

"At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user vision shall be provided or support for assistive technology used by people who are blind or are visually impaired shall be provided where that technology would provide full access to at least one mode of operation and information presentation and where that assistive technology would be typically present for the user in the environments when they went to use the product."

"2194.2 Application" so that it applies to all of the standard. We also chose to include a note reminding the reader of the clause at the top of the Functional Performance Criteria section even though this would not technically be required so that it was easier to correctly read this section. Since it should be kept in mind for all of the guidelines, this should not be necessary.

2194.27 (A) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user vision and that allows full access shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: In addition to removing the compatibility clause from provision A, we suggest the following two changes:

2194.27 (B) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/200, that does not require audio perception, and that allows full access shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: Again, we changed the word retrieval to presentation and added the full access clause.

In addition, we changed the language to read greater than 20/200 rather than greater than 20/70. In the NPRM rationale for changing it from 20/200 to 20/70, it was stated that many individuals with vision worse than 20/200 also would find this functionality useful. However, by changing the specification from 20/200 to 20/70, the NPRM requirement did not increase the coverage to include people with more severe visual impairments but rather limited it to people with vision down to only 20/71. In the current NPRM as it is worded therefore there is no requirement to meet the needs of individuals more severe visual impairments than 20/71.

In looking at this provision carefully, it is important to note that the original EITAAC guideline was intended to provide access to people who had low vision and whose hearing would not allow them to use auditory access techniques. (Access using auditory means was already covered above and audio working with visual was also covered elsewhere.)

By trying to combine the three guidelines into one, the original intent of this guideline was lost. That of providing access to people with low vision who also could not rely on their hearing. (Hence the "without audio" clause.)

In addition, to losing the original intent of the clause for people with poor vision and no hearing, combining the three guidelines together also resulted in a structure that does not allow you to specify a lower visual limit. As a result you end up with only specifying that it must accommodate people with vision poorer than 20/70. A floor must be provided or it will be impossible for industry to comply with providing visual access.

One cannot require that companies make products usable to people with vision all the way down to light perception.

Part 3 could be attached to part 2 but it should be done as a separate sentence. It might be confusing however to discuss audio and non audio in the same sentence so we opted to put it above in the specific requirements.

2194.27 (C) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user hearing and allows full access shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: This provision is essentially the same as the NPRM's with the standard three revisions previously discussed.

2194.27 (D) Where audio information is important for the use of a product, at least one mode of operation and information presentation shall be provided in an enhanced auditory fashion.

DISCUSSION: The same as the NPRM except the word retrieval has been changed to presentation.

2194.27 (E) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user speech and that allows full access shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: The same as the NPRM except the word retrieval has been changed to presentation and the full access clause has been added.

2194.27 (F) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions, that is operable with limited reach and strength, and that allows full access shall be provided.

DISCUSSION: The same as the NPRM except the word retrieval has been changed to presentation and the full access clause has been added.

2194.27 (G) ADVISORY Wherever possible products should minimize the cognitive, and memory ability required of the user and accommodate people with learning disabilities.

DISCUSSION: This items was not included in the NPRM. We were unable to come up with objective measures or specific requirements to address these populations that were not already in products for other groups. We do think that there are many measure that can be taken however for improving access for these groups. We therefore have included this as an advisory to reflect the fact that the government would be interested in products that address these areas.

NOTE: If users would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT then the ability of the product meet this criterion can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

(a) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user vision and that allows full access shall be provided.

(c) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user hearing and that allows full access shall be provided.

(d) Where audio information is important for the use of a product, at least one mode of operation and information presentation shall be provided in an enhanced auditory fashion.

(e) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user speech and that allows full access shall be provided.

(g) ADVISORY Wherever possible products should minimize the cognitive, and memory ability required of the user and accommodate people with learning disabilities.

DISCUSSION: The first these three clauses are essentially identical to the NPRM except for one major change. The fourth item simply adds training back into this area since it is an important component of support.

In the NPRM, the language stated that the agency would ensure that these three provisions were met. There are only two obvious ways for the agency to assure this:

When one is talking about the support services and training which is provided by the agency (and not provided by the manufacturer), then it is clear that this would be the responsibility of the agency. However, if an agency is not procuring these services, then there is no need to include these agency responsibilities in this document.

If this discussion is about accessible documentation, service, support and training which needs to be provided by the manufacturers, then it is unclear why these provisions have been worded so that the manufacturer is not responsible for them. Unless these provisions are included in the RFP as a responsibility of the manufacturer, agencies will have little chance of being able to keep up with a continual translation and conversion process to make documents and services accessible. In addition, all of the costs for making manufacturer provided training accessible would have to be borne by the agencies.

Finally, if it is the decision of the Access Board that the manufacturer should not be required to provide accessible documentation and support services, then these provisions should not be included at all in the 508 purchase regulations.

Since we understand that documentation, support and training are key issues and accessibility of these has been a problem when left to agencies to handle their own and within their own budgets, we have removed the term "agency" from these provisions so that the companies would be participants in the process of providing accessible documentation, support and training.

2194.31 (A) Any product support documentation provided to end-users, shall be available in alternate formats upon request, at no additional charge.

DISCUSSION: Identical to NPRM except for the removal of the agency responsibility clause.

2194.31 (B) A description of the accessibility and compatibility features of products shall be provided in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request, at no additional charge.

DISCUSSION: Identical to NPRM except for the removal of the agency responsibility clause.

2194.31 (C) Support services for products including training shall accommodate the communication needs of end-users with disabilities.

SUMMARY COMPILATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REORGANIZATION

Subpart A -- General

Subpart B -- Accessibility Standards

(a) Operable Elements
(b) Visual Elements
(c) Auditory Elements
(d) Video, Multimedia and Animation
(e) Communication and Telecommunication functions
(f) Biological Variation (Accommodation of)
(g) Non-Interference with Existing Access Technologies
(h) Compatibility with Software Assistive Technologies
(i) Connectivity for External Assistive Technologies

Subpart C -- Information, Documentation, and Support

Subpart A -- General

The purpose of this part is to implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.

(a) When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each agency shall comply with the requirements of this part, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.

(1) When compliance with the requirements of this part imposes an undue burden, agencies shall provide individuals with disabilities with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.

(2) When procuring a product, if an agency determines that compliance with any requirement of this part imposes an undue burden, the documentation by the agency supporting the procurement shall explain why, and to what extent, compliance with each such requirement creates an undue burden.

(b) Except as provided by §2194.3(b), this part applies to electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by agencies directly or used by a contractor under a contract with an agency which requires the use of such product, or requires the use, to a significant extent, of such product in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.

(2) Not yet available in the commercial marketplace, but through advances in technology or performance will be available in time to satisfy the delivery requirements under a Government solicitation; or

(d) Products required to be accessible shall comply with all applicable provisions of this part. Section 2194.21 provides requirements that apply generally to all products. Section 2194.23 provides requirements for specific components of products and shall be applied to each component. Products may have more than one component. Section 2194.25 provides requirements for compatibility of products with assistive technology commonly used by individuals with disabilities. Section 2194.27 provides functional performance criteria for overall product evaluation and for technologies or components for which there is no specific requirement under other sections. Section 2194.31 provides requirements for information, documentation, and support.

(e) When evaluating the ability of products to meet individual accessibility standards, the products can be evaluated in conjunction with any assistive technology which would, under ordinary circumstances, be present at the time and location that individuals with disabilities would want to operate the product. If product types could be used in different locations and under different conditions, (such as a personal computer which could be used in a personal workstation or public kiosk) then the evaluation shall be based on the location and application for which the product is being purchased. Compatibility with assistive technology shall not be considered when evaluating the accessibility of the equipment being purchased where users will not have the assistive technology when they use the product.

(a) This part does not apply to any telecommunications or information system operated by agencies, the function, operation, or use of which involves intelligence activities, cryptologic activities related to national security, command and control of military forces, equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system, or systems which are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions. Systems which are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions do not include a system that is to be used for routine administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management applications).

(b) This part does not apply to electronic and information technology that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract.

(c) Except as required to comply with these standards in this part, this part does not require the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of an assistive technology device at a workstation of a Federal employee who is not an individual with a disability.

(d) When agencies provide access to the public to information or data through electronic and information technology, agencies are not required to make equipment owned by the agency available for access and use by individuals with disabilities at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public, or to purchase equipment for access and use by individuals with disabilities at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public.

(e) This part shall not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components.

Accessible. Electronic and information technology which complies with the requirements of this part.

Agency.Any Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service.

Alternate formats. Alternate formats usable by people with disabilities may include, but are not limited to, Braille, ASCII text, large print, recorded audio, and accessible Internet formats.

Alternate methods.Different means of providing information, including product documentation, to people with disabilities. Alternate methods may include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, relay service, TTY, Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and audio description.

Assistive technology.Any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

Electronic and information technology. Includes information technology and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. The term electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications products (such as telephones), information kiosks and transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as copiers and fax machines. The term does not include any equipment that contains imbedded information technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information technology is integral to its operation, are not information technology.

Information technology. Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. The term information technology includes computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources.

Operable components. A component of a product that requires physical contact for normal operation. Operable components include, but are not limited to, mechanically operated controls, input and output trays, card slots, keyboards, or keypads.

Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.

TTY. An abbreviation for teletypewriter. Machinery or equipment that employs interactive text based communications through the transmission of Baudot coded signals across the telephone network. TTYs may include, for example, devices known as TDDs (telecommunication display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf persons) or computers with special modems. TTYs are also called text telephones.

Undue burden. Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency shall consider all agency resources available to the agency or components for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.

Fundamental alteration. A fundamental alteration is a change to a product which causes the product to be unable to carry out its primary mission or function or prevents the product from operating in its original manner. Adding an alternative presentation mode or operating mode shall not in itself constitute a fundamental alteration unless it meaningfully interferes with the original functionality, features, or operating modes of the product.

Nothing in this part is intended to prevent the use of designs or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed in this part provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of a product for people with disabilities.

(1) At least one mode shall be provided where all functionality of the product can be achieved using operating mechanisms which are tactually discernable without activation.

ADVISORY: Operable mechanisms should also be visually discernable from their background. A dark edge or dark gap of sufficient width between buttons or around a button can also serve this purpose.

(2) There shall be at least one mode of operation and input that does not require user speech to operate controls.

(3) The status of all locking or toggle controls or keys shall be visually discernible, and discernible either through touch or sound.

(4) At least one complete set of operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, twisting of the wrist, fine motor control, or simultaneous actions. The force required to activate controls shall be 5 lbs. (22.2 N) maximum.

(5) Products which have physical keyboards and software which supports a keyboard shall comply with the following:

(a) All software/firmware operable actions available or required by the product shall be operable from the keyboard

(b) If keyboard repeat is supported, the keyboard delay before repeat shall be adjustable to at least 2 seconds. Key repeat rate shall be adjustable to 2 seconds per character.

(c) If interface elements are provided on a display, then logical navigation among interface elements and operation of the elements shall be provided by use of keystrokes.

(6) Products which are freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be used in one location and which have operable components shall comply with the following:

(a) The position of any operable control shall be determined with respect to a vertical plane, which is 48 inches in length, centered on the operable control, and at the maximum protrusion of the product within the 48 inch length (see Fig. 1 of this part).

(b) Where any operable control is 10 inches or less behind the reference plane, the height shall be 54 inches maximum and 15 inches minimum above the floor.

(c) Where any operable control is more than 10 inches and not more than 24 inches behind the reference plane, the height shall be 46 inches maximum and 15 inches minimum above the floor.

(d) Operable components shall not be more than 24 inches behind the reference plane (see Fig. 2 of this part).

(7) At least one mode shall be provided which a) does not require users to respond or read within a timed interval or b) allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to at least 5 times the default setting, or c) offers the user the opportunity to extend their time and allows at least 10 seconds to respond to the offer.

(1) Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

(2) At least one mode of operation that provides high contrast between text or symbols and background shall be provided.

(3) If interactive interface elements are provided on a display, a well-defined, high visibility, on-screen indication of the current focus shall be provided that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus changes.

(4) If animated or moving text is provided on a device with user controls it shall also be displayable in at least one static presentation mode at the option of the user.

(5) All information provided visually by the product and required for full use of the product shall be available in auditory or tactile form without relying on the use of Braille.

NOTE:Braille is a powerful access technique for those that know it and it is highly encouraged. It is only used by approx 10% of those who are blind however, so it is not a general solution for people who are blind.

(6) Where audio and large print modes are provided it shall be possible for them to work together.

[NOTE TO ADVISORY BOARD: It should NOT be required that they work separately since the standard mode of operation may be to show both audio and visual displays at all times to all users].

(7) ADVISORY: At least one mode of operation that displays text (including display of labels on request) in 3/16 (4.8 mm) sans serif font is desirable where possible.

(1) Where products deliver recorded or synthetic speech output through a speaker or device held up to the ear, incremental volume control shall be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable.

EXCEPTION: Products purchased for use in personal work areas, that have a headphone or headset jack shall not be required to meet this guideline

(2) All information provided in auditory form by the product and required for full use of the product shall be available in visual form.

NOTE: Per 2194.2(e),if users who require access in visual form would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT then the ability of the product to provide visual access to audio information can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

(3) When speech output is provided for access it shall be possible to interrupt it.

(1) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain speech or other audio necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed captioned if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with hearing impairments.

(2) All video and multimedia productions, regardless of format, that contain visual information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be audio described if the production is procured or developed for repeated showings to audiences that may include people with visual impairments.

(3) Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent.

(4) All television displays and projectors 13 inches and larger, and computer equipment that includes television receiver circuitry or accepts NTSC input, shall be equipped with caption decoder circuitry which appropriately receives, decodes, and displays closed captions from broadcast, cable, videotape, and DVD signals.

(5) Television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry.

(1) Where a product delivers output by an audio output device which is normally held up to the ear, a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing technologies shall be provided except where all information is also provided visually.

(2) For transmitted voice signals, products shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB. For incremental volume control, at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain shall be provided.

(3) If the telecommunications product allows a user to adjust the receive volume, a function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use but not before. Unless the volume can exceed 120 dB SPL, the reset function shall be a user option on non-public devices.

(4) Telecommunications products which provide a function allowing voice communication and which do not themselves provide a TTY functionality shall provide a standard non-acoustic connection point for TTYs. It shall also be possible for the user to easily turn any microphone on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with TTY use.

(5) Telecommunications products which include voice communication functionality shall support use of all cross-manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs.

(6) Where provided, caller identification and similar telecommunications functions shall also be available for users of TTYs, telecommunications relay services, and for users who cannot see displays.

(7) Voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall be usable by TTY users directly with their TTYs and via TRS operators including the ability of the TRS operators to repeat and pause messages so that the operators can keep up with the recording.

(8) Voice mail, messaging, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telecommunications systems shall provide at least one mode which allows users to repeat messages and does not require users to respond within a timed interval or allows users to adjust the timing and repetition of those intervals to a minimum of 5 times the default or offers the user an option to extend their time and provides as least 10 seconds to respond to the offer.

(1) Where biometric forms of user identification or activation are used, an alternative form of identification or activation, which does not require the user to possess particular biological characteristics, shall also be provided.

(2) Where touchscreens or touch-operated controls are used, such controls shall be operable without requiring body contact or close human body proximity, or all of the operations and functions that are available through such controls shall be made available through an alternate mode that does not require body contact or close human body proximity.

(3) When flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements are displayed, any flash rate shall be 3 Hz or below or 55 Hz and above.

(1) Interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) shall be reduced to the lowest possible level to allow a user of hearing technologies to utilize the product.

(3) Software shall not interfere with existing features of other products or operating systems that affect the usability for people with disabilities.

(4) An option shall be provided to ignore individual application or document display attributes so system-wide settings will be maintained.

(5) All products that act as a transport or conduit for information or communication shall pass through cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary, industry-standard codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to provide the information or communication in a usable format. Technologies which use encoding, signal compression, format transformation, or similar techniques shall not remove information needed for access or shall restore it upon delivery.

(1) For all E&IT where it is possible to install and run software assistive technology the following shall apply:

(a) The input/control focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.

(b) Sufficient information about a user interface element including the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology.

(c) Where an image represents an interface element or the state of an interface element, there must be a way for assistive technology to associate meaningful text with the image.

(d) Text shall be provided through an application programming interface supporting interaction with assistive technology or use system text writing tools. The minimum information that shall be available to assistive technology is text content, text input caret location, text selection, and text attributes.

(e) Electronic forms shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form including all directions and cues. Inaccessible electronic forms may be used, if an alternative accessible electronic form with equivalent information, field elements, and functionality is also provided.

(f) ADVISORY: The default use of icons should be consistent throughout an application.

(1) Products providing auditory output shall provide the auditory signal at a standard signal level through an industry standard connector. Auditory cut off of speaker shall be available to allow the user to listen privately.

EXCEPTION: Products which produce only simple non-speech sounds which are already presented in equivalent visual form or decorative sounds that convey no information shall not be required to have such a connector

(2) For technologies where a standard exists and is supported by assistive technologies, information and control needed for the real time operation of an E&IT (including equivalent access to control, output, alerts, on-line help, and on-line documentation) shall be available to an external device in a cross-industry standard form that is easily and completely translatable into text. This form shall be available via a cross- industry standard port that does not require manipulation of a connector by the user.

(3) ADVISORY: Where standard ports are available and can be used to meet a product's requirements, standard ports shall be available and/or an adapter which would convert the proprietary port to the standard port shall be available.

(1) Web software shall comply with 2194.21 (General Requirements) and 2194.27 (Functional Performance Criterion)

(3) An appropriate method shall be used to facilitate the easy tracking of page content that provides users of assistive technology the option to skip repetitive navigation links.

(4) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI WCAG 1.0 also be complied with wherever possible

(5) Authoring Tools shall comply with Priority 1 items from the W3C WAI Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0.

(6) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0 be complied with wherever possible.

(7) User Agents shall comply with Priority 1 items from the W3C WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0.

(8) ADVISORY: It is recommended that Priority 2 items from the W3C WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0 be complied with wherever possible.

NOTE: If users would typically have related assistive technology with them whenever they wanted to use the E&IT then the ability of the product meet this criterion can be evaluated with the assistive technology(s) in place.

(1) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user vision and that allows full access shall be provided.

(2) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/200, that does not require audio perception, and that allows full access shall be provided.

(3) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user hearing and that allows full access shall be provided.

(4) Where audio information is important for the use of a product, at least one mode of operation and information presentation shall be provided in an enhanced auditory fashion.

(5) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require user speech and that allows full access shall be provided.

(6) At least one mode of operation and information presentation that does not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions, that is operable with limited reach and strength, and that allows full access shall be provided.

(7) ADVISORY: Wherever possible products should minimize the cognitive and memory ability required of the user and accommodate people with learning disabilities.

Subpart C -- Information, Documentation, and Support

(a) Any product support documentation provided to end-users, shall be available in alternate formats upon request, at no additional charge.

(b) A description of the accessibility and compatibility features of products shall be provided in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request, at no additional charge.

(c) Support services for products including training shall accommodate the communication needs of end-users with disabilities.

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.

4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions).

6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document.

6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes.

7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker.

ADVISORY: 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.

1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map.

9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.

5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells.

6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page.

1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.

1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.

11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.

Part 4 - Summary and Closing Comments

These standards are a major breakthrough in access to the emerging digital economy and workplace for people with disabilities. It is difficult to set accessibility standards in an area that is as diverse and dynamic as electronic and information technologies.

The above comments are submitted in the hope that they can assist the Access Board in its rulemaking process. In closing we would like to summarize what we see as the recommendations that are the most critical to the success of 508 standards and the 508 implementation process

The most essential changes we see that need to be made to the 508 standards are: