# Presentation: 142983

## Section 508 Web Assessment Plan Mary Frances TheofanosJanuary 16, 2003

## CTB and Section 508, Past and Future

- CTB Mission
- Section 508 & the Web
- CTB Section 508 Activities
- Planning & Strategy
- Services & Resources
- Partnerships & Recognition
- Section 508 Web Assessment Plan
- The Problem
- The Solution
- Issues

**Notes:**
This slide introduces the discussion of what CTB has done with 508.

## Who We Are

**Communication Technologies Branch (CTB) **
- National Cancer Institute’s Office of Communications (NIH)
-  **CTB Mission**
**To analyze, design, evaluate, and test communications technology systems, products, and services **(Web sites, software, mobile technologies, phone systems, and other user interfaces)** to make them more usable, useful, and accessible**

**Notes:**
Introduces CTB.

## Section 508 Web Standards

- Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by Congress in 1998, requires that federal agencies' electronic and information technology be accessible to people with disabilities.
- Applies to all federal and federally funded Web sites.
- The Access Board-developed technical standards for compliance (***Federal Accessibility Standards for Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications***) were published on December 21, 2000 and took effect June 21, 2001.
- Enforcement: Citizens may sue agencies to compel compliance
- There are 16 paragraphs in the Web standards...

**Notes:**
Overview of 508.

## § 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.

- (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).
- (b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation.
- (c) Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.
- (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated style sheet.
- (e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image map.
- (f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.
- (g) Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables.
- (h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers.
- (i) Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and navigation.
- (j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
- (k) A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.
- (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
- (m) When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l).
- (n) When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form 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.
- (o) A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation links.
- (p) When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required.

**Notes:**
Quick glance at 16 508 paragraphs that directly relate to the Web. For illustrative purposes!

## Typical issues

- PDF files
- Meta refresh
- What’s equivalent?
- “GO” button and drop downs

**Notes:**
Examples of 508 issues on Web sites. Use as examples of where managers/developers are making decisions every day on how to interpret the Access Board standards.  Timed responses / meta refresh.   What’s equivalent – 800? Drop down without Go button.  

## NCI Accessibility Standards

- Published January 2002
- Part of larger Web standards effort/cancer.gov relaunch
- Not widely publicized (yet)
- Totally dependent on Section 508 Standards, with minor additions
- “Accessibility Link” included in Design Standards

**Notes:**
More on CTB’s 508 activities. The development of standards like these was made in response to the need to interpret the Access Board standards. Many other HHS OpDivs and Federal Agencies have done similar things. The results of the Assessment will provide more real data for these types of efforts.

## These questions need to be answered

- How accessible are NCI/HHS sites?
- No grading system: Subjective
- One person’s pass is another person’s fail
- No definitive measure of compliance
- Rely on self reporting?
- No way to aggregate
- How much more does NCI/HHS need to do? (and where?)
- Training
- Priorities:
- Retrofitting: what to fix first
- Which sites to fix first

**Notes:**
Rationale for doing the assessment. In response to questions coming from HHS and NCI management.
How are we doing?  How do you compare one site to another?  What tools to check?  “You can’t manage what you haven’t measured.”

## How accessible are NCI/HHS  Web sites?

- How can we answer this question?
- “Traditional” accessibility reviews
- Labor intensive
- Not standardized (priorities or reporting)
- Too much effort on technical violations (what is compliant?)
- No standard interpretation of Access Board standards (what is equivalent?)
- Focused on what needs fixing, not big picture
- No way to aggregate data
- One-time value (must redo from the ground up for new data)
- No strategy for self-assessment or sampling

**Notes:**
More on the rationale for the assessment. Why traditional “manual” reviews are limited and a new approach was needed.

## A new approach is needed

- Create a standardized assessment process
- Choose among current competing **tools** and report data
- Create a **protocol** for human judgment (problem severity and context)
- Create method to **aggregate** data
- Create **grading** system (e.g., Homeland security alerts)
- Create **guidance** on when testing is indicated
- Create a **standard report** (by site and groups of sites)
- Benefits
- Know how well HHS/NCI has done—create a baseline
- Standardized protocol reusable by any 3rd party
- Standardized self-assessment possible
- Measure performance across time
- Commit resources where they are needed
- Reduce ambiguity in interpretation of standards
- Sampling much more feasible
- Potential buy-in across government

**Notes:**
This page summarizes how the assessment will be run and what we will get from it. The whole thing is on this slide. SPEND TIME HERE.

## Assessment Results / Final Report / Baseline

**Violation Severity / Weight**

**Web Site Attributes**

**Score / Site Report**

**Assessment Results / Final Report / Baseline**

- Aggregation

**Overview of Assessment Protocol**

- Usability / Accessibility Testing Guidance

- Self Assessment Protocol

**Notes:**
Graphic overview of main protocol components and outputs.
Web Site Attributes – Human judgment here.  Example = whether pages are important or not.
Usability / Accessibility Testing Guidance and Self Assessment Protocol = Byproducts

## How: New Approach Assessment

- Use NCAM Partnership
- Larry Goldberg, Director, Geoff Freed, Andrew Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Rothberg, Jennifer Gormley
- Assemble panel of Web Accessibility experts
***Jim Allen, Ph.D.**** *
- Webmaster, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
- Active in W3C-WAI
***Jim Thatcher***
*Constructing Accessible Web Sites* Coauthor
- Access Board Advisory Committee member
***Jim Tobias***
- President, Inclusive Technologies, Inc.
- Accessibility Expert with Bell Labs, others
- Include HHS 508 Program Team
- Choose tool, data aggregation system
- Develop human decision protocol, grading system, standard report, testing guidance
- Share progress; open process for buy-in
- Pilot assessment on test sites, refine—make sure results match common sense
- HHS assessment

**Notes:**
The “who” and the “how” of the assessment.  NCCAM = National expert.

## Progress: Where are we now

- September 5, 2002 Kick-off meeting
- Chosen the tool – Bobby CL
- Developed the 508 Standards Matrix
- Piloted the protocol on an example Web site -- NHLBI

**Notes:**
The “who” and the “how” of the assessment.  NCCAM = National expert.

## What’s Next:

- Need to test the protocol on two more Web sites for comparisons
- Comments and reviews internally
- Comments and peer review from external audiences
- Application of the protocol to NCI and HHS Web sites

**Notes:**
Discussion of some of the issues/pitfalls.  Bobby provides richest data.  We haven’t endorsed any one tool.

## Issues

- Must be managed carefully not to provide impression of avoiding 508 responsibilities—follow up (and progress) are critical
- Effort to get buy in from disabled community, other agencies could slow things down
- Human decision protocols will still use some subjective judgment—may be “tweaked” throughout process

**Notes:**
Discussion of some of the issues/pitfalls.  Bobby provides richest data.  We haven’t endorsed any one tool.

## Contacts

**Communication Technologies Branch**** ****(CTB)**
**Office of Communications • National Cancer Institute**
- Mary Theofanos
- 6116 Executive Blvd, Suite 3048A
- Rockville, MD 20852
- Phone: 301-594-8193
- Fax: 301-480-3441
- Email: _[mtheo@mail.nih.gov](mailto:mtheo@mail.nih.gov)_
- Philip Passarelli
- 6116 Executive Blvd, Suite 3048A
- Rockville, MD 20852
- Phone: 301-435-4871
- Fax: 301-435-6069
- Email: _[pap@mail.nih.gov](mailto:pap@mail.nih.gov)_