# Presentation: 361054

## Section 508:  Perspectives from the State Level 

- Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D.
- National Association of State Chief Information Officers
- Missouri Assistive Technology

## Missouri’s Legal Framework

- State statute requires access similar to 508
- 		Covers state agencies and public higher ed
- 		Vests oversight with CIO and AT Council
- 		Requires STATE adoption of access standards
- Used Section 508 technical standards as base
- 		Adopted software, desktop/portable & documentation
- 		Modified web, telecom, video & multimedia
- 		Did not adopt self-contained or functional standards

## Modifications to standards

- Web – Changed requirement for 100% synchronized text equivalent provided for every non-text element to phase in levels to get to 100%  (live web cast problem, higher ed issues - revisiting schedule now . . .)
- Telecom – Added specific reference to voice mail/IVR access via relay to ensure access for VCO and HCO users who may or may not be  covered by “direct TTY access.”
- – Added reference to maximum output (125 dB SPL) and reference to volume reset only when capable of greater than 18 dB gain (attempt to harmonize with FCC).
- Multimedia – Revised requirement for 100% captioning and video description to phase in levels to get to 100% and exempted television broadcasts (deferred to FCC requirements)

## General Issues

- Coverage of state agencies with similar role and function (bureaucratic)
- Much more complicated when applied to higher ed, K-12 and others
- Gallaudet, DoD K-12 schools, expansive distance education efforts, etc.
- Unique issues with captioning and video description
- Require built in for all or allow to add when needed?  (closed distance ed courses, taping of training for absentee employees)
- Captioning doesn’t deliver access (young children, ASL need)
- Concept of “line of products” not included in 508 (is in 255)
- Calculators
- Glucometers, thermometers, etc.
- Amplified telephones

## Specific Procurement Issues

- How do you verify conformance to the access standards?
- How do you rate the degree access?
- How does the access rating fit into overall procurement decision making?

## Verifying Conformance to the Access Standards

- Option 1 – Vendor assurance of 100% conformance
- 	+ Easy for state, liability shift to vendor (no cost fix)
- 	- Limited commercial availability, naive vendor assurance
- Option 2 – Vendor provided data, state review
- 	+ Balanced responsibility between vendors and state
- 	- Poor data from vendor, requires expertise to do reviews,
- 		requires consistent review procedures to be valid
- Option 3 – Direct product testing
- 	+ Consistent, defendable results (if protocols are valid & reliable)
- 	-  Extremely high resource demand: technical expertise, testing protocol
- 		development, standards should be “testable”
- 	- 3rd party testing labs, timelines, conflict of interest (voting)

##    Examples of Paper Responses

- Standard:  When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a keyboard . . . .
*“**Most system functions can be executed via the keyboard.”*
*“**Product is designed to use the mouse; however the keyboard can also be used to navigate the application.”*
*“**Functions are executable from the keyboard unless specifically designed to work with a mouse control.*”
- Standard:  Sufficient information about a user interface element, including the identify, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology.
*“**If the user is able to use assistive technology with the operating system,  then they should be able to use our software.”*
*“**Users with access needs will use the features provided by the browser.*”

## Access Rating and Decision-Making

- Procurement decision-making typically includes:
- 	Cost (objective assignment of points/value)
- 	Performance (ability to meet business needs, subjective rating)
- 	Conformance to access standards
- 		Rarely results in “met – not met” outcome
- 		Usually subjective rating of some form in “degrees”
- How is accessibility review/rating done?
- 	Points assigned to each access standard or holistic rating?
- 	Are all standards in an area (software) equally important to access?
- 	If not, how should the standards be weighed to yield a valid rating?
- How should access review/rating influence the final decision?
- 	Where does the access rating fit in best value decision-making?
- 	Is there a bottom cut-off where nothing “best meets” access standards?

## Examples

- Voter Registration System (custom app based on COTS product)
- 297 Technical Specs, including 29 web and software access standards.
- If each is weighed equally (access part of business needs review) access rating would have had no real impact in decision-making.
- If use 3 ratings (cost = 50, business need = 30, access = 20) access rating has more influence, but still easily overrun by other ratings.
- To ensure some baseline level of accessibility, the review/rating could include an “unacceptable” option reflecting an access rating so low that regardless of other factors the product was not procured.
- Court Case and Docket Management System  (mostly COTS)
- Three bids – costs almost the same, A and B are acceptable for technical specs but  unacceptable accessibility, C is not acceptable for technical specs and barely adequate for access.
- “Best meets” for access alone would purchase product C.  Best meets access combined with business need would allow for purchase of inaccessible A or B.

## What would help? 

- Clearly understood technical access standards with valid mechanisms for rating conformance
- Binary individual rating with all standards equal in weight  OR
- Identified relative weight of each standard within the group
- Reliable, valid review procedures (rating systems, etc.)
- Clearly defined role of accessibility in the procurement process
- Some way to ensure a baseline level of access is delivered without sacrificing business need and cost considerations
- Clearly understood and communication role of each in decision making to support transparency of process