United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 1 of 24

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman? 

Whatever you are ready. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: We are ready to go, Rose?

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Whenever you are ready, Mr. Duff.

>> DUFF JOHNSON: Hi there. Thank you once again to the ladies and 

gentlemen of the US Access Board, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify before you once again. I would like to speak with 

you today about PDF/ UA, the iOS accessible standard for PDF technology.

Since PDF/ UA was first published in the summer of 2012, strong interest 

has generated a wide variety of technical resources, supporting 

documents, products and statements of commitment. These include 

software supporting PDF/ UA from at least 12 vendors including free PDF/

UA Checker, a commitment from Adobe Systems, PDF's inventor, to 

integrate support for PDF/ UA into their products. AIM has published a 

mapping to WCAG 2.0 and two technical implementation guides. These 

are published by the ISO standards original author and are freely available 

from AIM.org. And the PDF associations Matterhorn protocols and PDF/

UA reference suite are authoritative documents, and examples that make 

PDF/ UA more approachable for developers. These are also available for 

free from PDFUA.org. The German DVBS, the association for blind and 

partially sighted users, is preparing a German translation of the Matterhorn 

for use in legislation less equivalent to our use of the Section 508. In 

addition, the Library of Congress has recognized PDF/ UA and they have 

stated in their digital preservation website that files conforming to this into 

PDF/ UA are considered a preferred format for page oriented content. 

PDF/ UA's influence is also felt in banking and transactional 

communications. For example, Bank of America and Capitol One 

customers may now download accessible PDF versions of their statements 

from the banking websites. As someone who communicates regularly 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 2 of 24

with the world of PDF software developers, I can assure the Access Board 

that these sorts of developments would not have occurred without PDF/

UA. Developers need the technical specificity of the standard to know 

unambiguously whether or not they have done the job right. PDF/ UA

provides the certainty necessary to investment in accessibility solutions for 

PDF documents. I am confident that the Access Board's choice to require 

PDF/ UA conformance for PDF documents will accelerate the development 

of software and policies ensuring all manner of documents are available to 

all users. 

There are several challenges with respect to employing PDF/ UA and I 

would like to address a few of them briefly here. Although dynamic XFA, 

JavaScript and audiovisual content appears in a tiny proportion of PDF 

documents, the volume and use cases are not insignificant. PDF/ UA does

not focus on these types of content. Where PDF documents contain these 

features, therefore, applicable WCAG 2.0 provisions should be met using 

sufficient techniques in addition to PDF/ UA conformance. Although PDF/

UA refers to WCAG 2.0 on the subject of contrast, the reference is made in 

a note rather than normative text. From a regulatory point of view, 

therefore, it may be easier to simply state that in addition to conformance 

with PDF/ UA, content must adhere to contrast provisions in WCAG 2.0. 

It's entirely correct to use technical standards appropriate to specific 

content types. A butcher is not the right person to tell a baker how to get 

his bread right. A baker is not the right person to tell a butcher how to cut 

meat. WCAG is quite correctly oriented to the world of web pages while 

PDF consists primarily of static documents. While there is much overlap 

the subjects are technically distinct, each is worthy of full treatment on its 

own terms. The simplest way to explain the relationship between PDF/ UA 

and WCAG 2.0 is to say that PDF/ UA, for the vast majority of PDF 

documents, is the appropriate, sufficient technique for conformance to 

WCAG 2.0. As noted above, PDF/ UA does not fully address all types of 

content possible in PDF documents and in these cases WCAG 2.0 

conforming sufficient techniques are appropriate in addition to PDF/ UA 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 3 of 24

conformance. 

In thinking of the future, PDF 2.0 is already a draft international standard 

and is at the end of its development cycle. The publication is expected 

next year. PDF 2.0 includes powerful, new accessibility features, such as 

support for document fragments, new standards structure types such as 

emphasis to address real world semantics missing from PDF 1.7, support 

for MathML and the ability to integrate third party tag sets such as Daisy. 

PDF 2.0 will be accompanied by PDF/ UA 2 and update and leverage the 

features of PDF/ UA 2 and provides other clarifications. Generalizing the 

Section 508 rules to require PDF/ UA generally rather than simply 

specifying PDF/ UA 1 would allow usage to involve naturally from PDF/ UA 

1 to PDF/ UA 2, and as PDF 2.0 replaces PDF1.7 in the marketplace. This 

would reduce the potential for confusion and accelerate uptake of the 

features of PDF 2.0 and PDF/ UA 2 and by software developers who might 

otherwise be inhibited by the requirement for PDF/ UA 1. It would be 

unfortunate if vendors were unable to deliver 

 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Mr. Johnson, could you wrap up in 30 seconds?

>> DUFF JOHNSON: Yep. Unable to deliver the advanced accessibility 

features of PDF/ UA 2 to government agencies and users due to inability to 

use the latest version of PDF/ UA. So, I suggest the Access Board consider 

the possibility of referring to PDF/ UA as a whole, rather than in term of 

specific parts. Consistent with these observations I will propose 

comments, for the record, that will offer specific changes to the regulations 

text. 

Finally, I would like to thank the Chair and the members of the Access 

Board for the opportunity to comment on the NPRM as you continue this 

rule making process. I am happy to answer any questions that you might 

have. Thank you very much.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you for your comments. Up next is Mr. 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 4 of 24

Kelly Buckland. Followed by him would be Miss Lauren McLarney.

Kelly Buckland? Lauren McLarney? Following Miss Lauren McLarney will be 

Ken Salaets.

>> LAUREN MCLARNEY: Good morning, my name is Lauren McLarney 

Manager of Government Affairs....Government Affairs of the National 

Federation of the Blind. You have already heard from my colleague Mark 

Maurer, our immediate past president, at CSUN. I will touch on some of 

the comments that he made and keep my statement brief. I know that 

there were in this timeline there have been a lot of comments from the 

public and I think there are a lot of things in your control and a lot of things 

out of your control. We are happy that it reached this phase. We are 

hoping for you to bring it to a finish. 

So, I would like to touch on the things that we are happy about in the NPRM. 

First we support the decision to incorporate WCAG by reference. This 

makes it easier for the Board to refresh the standards in the future without 

having to start from scratch and it streamlines the network of stakeholders 

outside of the federal government that are invested in accessibility. 

Second, we applaud the decision to transition from product based criteria 

to functionality based criteria. This makes the proposed rule flexible and 

applicable to future technologies. Third, we thank the Board for its 

appropriate response to the preliminary regulatory analysis findings. By 

improving accessibility of information that communications technology in 

the federal sector, the Board is indirectly improving the accessibility of ICT 

across society. It is this investment that brings the ultimate financial 

returns. 

The Board rightly acknowledges the fact in the NPRM when you state that 

most of the significant benefits expected to accrue from the proposed rule 

are difficult if not impossible to quantity, including greater social equality, 

human dignity and fairness. Indeed, there is no way of measuring just 

how much is lost when an entire population of people is kept from full 

participation in society. So, thank you for making that comment in the 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 5 of 24

NPRM. 

There are two constructive comments that Dr. Maurer made at CSUN that I 

would like to elaborate on a little bit. One is social media. The Board has 

proposed that all social media meet WCAG standard. We like that. But I 

think social media is so popular the majority of agencies are going to say, 

“We cannot control what Facebook Twitter and other social media sites do, 

and we need to utilize it, so we are going to anyway.” And I don't think 

that that is something that the Board can necessarily fix. In an ideal world 

we want all agencies to say we are not going to post on social media all of 

those sites would feel pressure from the market to make modifications. 

We suggest requiring agencies to follow the Authoring Tool Accessibility 

Guidelines. If at least they are going to post on a non-WCAG compliant 

site, they have taken steps to assure that they have made their content 

accessible. 

Second, the standards for software and interoperability are expansive 

enough to cover mobile platforms but we encourage you to explore adding 

things for mobile applications specifically. WCAG does not directly 

address mobile apps. I know they have application and have guidance but 

content delivered on a mobile platform or mobile app is technically covered 

but they are unique and specific. It's not enough for the agency to focus 

on assuring desktop and mobile platform accessibility. We urge the Board 

to look at supplementing the WCAG standards with some additional mobile 

application specific criteria. Perhaps looking at the Apple Guidelines or 

Accessibility Android has some application here too. I think the National 

Federation of the Blind, among others, believe the Apple guidelines are the 

best place to start. Thank you for the opportunity to come here. We look 

forward to working with you and bringing this to a finish.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you. Up next is Mr. Ken Salaets.

>> KEN SALAETS: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today. This is my fourth chance to sit before the Board and talk about 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 6 of 24

Section 508. At ITI we represent ICT manufacturers from North America,

Europe and Asia. We have 59 member companies - everybody from 

Adobe and every point in between. Next year we reach our 100th 

anniversary. We expect to throw a party and have a wide invitation list. 

It is a privilege to serve on advisory committees, and, in fact, we have really 

moved beyond just working with the Access Board as an agency. We have 

made friends among many of the staff and we very much appreciate that

--ITI appreciates the process that the Board applies in terms of engaging 

manufacturers in addressing the issue of accessibility. It's collaborative. 

We have debates, we have many conversations, it's very open and as a 

consequence of the process, by the time the standards are finalized, we 

have-- our members have a good sense of what it is required of them to 

address the needs of federal agencies to acquire accessible ICT. 

We wish all agencies worked that way. We think it's constructive. Again,

we applaud this openness. ITI is the creator of the product accessibility 

template, the VPAT. We said in the past we are committed to revising the 

VPAT to align with the revised Section 508 standards. We will accelerate 

once we deliver your comments. With the ANPRMs we developed groups 

to evaluate the rule. We realize we are in an informal competition with Jim 

Tobias to see who could file the largest comment. He topped us last time,

but we are ready to go this time. We held our first meeting this past 

Monday and will continue to do so, on a regular basis. 

My purpose today is not to provide a detailed reaction but a few flaws. We 

applaud the Board’s notion of aligning Section 508 with the new European 

Union standard on accessibility. However, we urge the Board and staff to 

further align 508 with the accessibility standard from the EU, primarily 

because as manufacturers, our goal is to really focus on innovating 

products that meet the needs of consumers and not on addressing 

different administrative technical requirements that might arise in different 

markets. I would like to say for example, whether an individual is blind in 

Brisbane, Brussels or the Bronx, the technical solution to provide 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 7 of 24

accessibility is essentially the same. There is really no need in many 

respects to have different requirements that require additional costs and 

expense. So we hope we can achieve greater harmonization. We have 

begun an analysis between the proposed rule and the European standard 

and will provide a detailed response to that in our comments.

We also, in terms of the initial concerns, we would like to identify two areas. 

One is the real-time character by character text capabilities and requiring 

that the device with visual displays provide text to speech voice output. 

While we appreciate the technology, we question whether the technology is 

needed by the vast majority of individual consumers inside or outside of 

government. There are many obstacles that render implementation 

difficult at best, including the need for carriers to upgrade and need for 

manufacturers to redesign the voice application on devices and the need to 

address interoperability challenges which we all face. 

Case in point, I use AT&T system on my smartphone; my wife uses Verizon. 

If she sends me a text message I may not get it for 10, 20 hours. That's 

not an issue of technology per say, but an interoperability challenge all of 

us experience. I am not holding up the carriers to blame. That's just one 

of the areas that have to be resolved before technology can move forward.

Regarding that, I'm sorry there are many obstacles. On paper these 

obstacles may seem to be minor matters, some may argue that. We 

assure you that is not the case. Nevertheless, again, we will file detailed 

documents on this issue in what we file.

Regarding the mandatory requirement for voice output, we are concerned 

that the requirements of the standard may be overly broad. For example 

some products that have basic character displays simply do not have 

internal resources such as sufficient memory and processor power to 

perform text to speech conversions. This will necessarily start the 

redesign of some products. It is unclear whether such changes could be 

incorporated into the products within the next timeframe, assuming that 

after the 90 day comment period the Board needs to take time to evaluate 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 8 of 24

the comments and staff and then it goes back to OMB and we see where it 

goes after that. Nevertheless, again, we will address specific issues 

concerns in our comments, and in each case we will endeavor to provide 

solutions to what we think the Board is endeavoring to address for the 

provisions. 

These are just a few of the issues that we have flagged, but these are the 

ones that jumped out immediately. We appreciate the 15 year 

relationship we have had with the Access Board. Accessibility is essential 

not only to our customers but in the case of the ICT industry, to meet our 

employees’ needs. We look forward to advancing 508 and continuing to 

hold it up as a model for the rest of the world. I thank you for all you did 

on this. Thank you very much.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you for your comments.

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: I have a question.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Go ahead.

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Thank you. I have a clarifying question. You 

mentioned that the need to align our rulemaking with European standards 

so that there is harmonization makes sense, I certainly appreciate the 

comment. And you also told us you are going to provide us some details. 

In that regard, can you give us a sense -- are we far off? Is this a major 

issue or is this going to be minor alignment between the two?

>> KEN SALAETS: In some cases it will be minor, in some cases it may be 

major. So, I had the privilege of also serving on the European 

Commission's project team on the European standard. One of the 

challenges that we have... you ...they have had, is the different time frames 

that elapsed in terms of development of the respective standards. 508 

has always been foremost I think in a global basis clearly in the U.S. market 

but now that the EN is in the marketplace -- the EN is what they call the 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 9 of 24

standards -- European norms. They are designing and developing

products to address the products reflected in the standard. Ideally we 

would like to be able to have one product for the world if we could design 

and develop and deliver one solution that works exceptionally well in 

Europe as well as U.S. the rest of the world will follow. In fact we will be 

out advocating that around the world. ITI is a global organization. Most 

of our clients are multi-national organizations. Accessibility is 

something we talk about whether in Africa, South America, or wherever we 

are.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you we look forward to your comments.

>> KEN SALAETS: Thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Salaets. Next up is Miss Eileen 

Ley followed by Aveoo--Avonne Bell.

>> EILEEN RIVERA LEY: Good morning, my name is Eileen Rivera Ley. My 

company is Ley and Associates. Basically I do accessibility advocacy work, 

particularly in the area of low vision accessibility. The national health 

surveys of 2012 estimates that 20.6 million people in the U.S. -- I mean 

adults, that's one out of 10 adults have trouble seeing even though they are 

wearing glasses or contacts. About 1 million of those people are blind 

and use nonvisual access. However, another 19 million of those people 

can benefit from low vision accessibility that we need on our technology. 

Kind of interesting but my husband is totally blind and I have low vision, so 

we call ourselves a mixed marriage.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> EILEEN RIVERA LEY: But what really has been a frustration for us is that 

he has more access to information through his screen reader than I do 

through my low vision accessibility features. And I feel like this 

population is seriously underserved. One of the things that I am very 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 10 of 24

happy about in the Standards is the emphasis on contrast. Contrast is a 

very, very important feature, all else being equal. If you can invert the 

contrast, something becomes visible that was originally not readable.

One of the features I will give an example for-- an example-- on my 

iPhone I use a lot of the inverse contrast feature, but I feel like at this point 

in our technology, we have the ability to create smarter inverse contrast. 

What happens globally, technically, is you will invert the contrast on an 

image and so everything gets inverted, including your photographs. An 

inverted photograph isn't as useful as a regular photograph so it would be 

very important if we could try to focus on inverting contrast just in the text 

and graphs, as opposed to images. 

Also, what happens a lot with devices, even ones as good as Apple, is with 

those technologies, is, in the very same app, the very same device, it keeps 

changing between inverse and non-inverse contrast so that you have to 

continually change your settings. It seems to me that the technology 

when we try to promote contrast -- inverse contrast, should allow for the 

system to understand that you need to keep it with the dark background 

and light letters, for example. I hope that's clear. I am not a techie, so I 

hope I am explaining clearly. 

It's all day long, triple clicking to change back and then you go to another 

part of the app -- all of a sudden it's using white on black. You have to 

change the contrast again. Every single function, the phone turns off and 

then you put your code in. But then if you have inverse contrast, it's 

almost impossible to see the numbers. And you have to turn on the 

inverse in order to put your code in, so when it unlocks you, you inverse it 

again. As you can see it's a very long day. You are going to wear out a lot 

of buttons with this triple clicking. I hope that's an example that shows 

we have the ability to have smart-- smarter contrast. And we need large 

controls and contrast. I know the standard is going to -- for web 

accessibility to be the A and AA, but when it comes to the contrast issues, I 

feel that the AA is not sufficient. I feel like we should encourage 

producers whenever possible to stretch and reach for the AAA standards in 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 11 of 24

text customization features. Even though you may not be able to require 

it we should allude to the fact that this would be the ideal and that 

companies should be encouraged to pursue that level of accessibility, not 

just the bare minimum with the A and AA. Thank you very much.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Miss Ley.

>> NANCY STARNES: Sachin, excuse me I have a quick question for... this 

is Nancy Starnes. I know our list says that you are here as a private 

individual --- I am over to your left. A private individual, but you did 

happen to mention an association that sounded more like a professional 

relationship. Can you repeat that?

>> MS. EILEEN RIVERA LEY: No, I do -- I have my own company that works 

on promoting accessibility and trying to encourage companies to make 

things more accessible. That's my own personal company.

>> NANCY STARNES: Entrepreneurial. Great. Thank you very much.

>> MS. EILEEN RIVERA LEY: Yes.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Up next is Avonne Bell followed by Terry Weaver

>> AVONNE BELL: Hi. Good morning my name is Avonne Bell. I am the

Senior Manager of Government Affairs at the Telecommunications Industry 

Association. TIA membership consists of the manufacturers and 

suppliers of ICT equipment and services that are supplied to a range of 

customers including the federal government. We appreciate the 

opportunity to speak to you this morning and other stakeholders on this 

important issue. 

TIA has been a member of the TEITAC and has been actively engaged with 

the Board over a decade on updating the standards since the beginning of 

the proceedings. We recognize the critical nature the work and support 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 12 of 24

the efforts to achieve the goal that people with disabilities have innovative 

advanced technology. While we were supportive of the Board's efforts we 

would like to briefly highlight our concerns today. 

One of the first issues that we have is with respect to the proposal to have 

real-time voice communications be enabled with real-time text 

functionality. The seemingly expansive requirement is problematic. It 

makes underlying assumptions that may not be accurate concerning the 

state of the technological ecosystem that would have to be in place to 

derive incremental benefit from real-time text. It requires a redesign of 

software voice applications in products today to integrate the new 

messaging approach. The proposal would have a significant impact on 

the network infrastructure. As currently designed, it is not able to support 

this technology. To facilitate the interoperability specified and provide 

the functionality, it would require not only manufacturers to update their 

equipment and devices, but also it would require significant changes to the 

existing carrier network. This would be overly burdensome by limiting 

the flexibility and design process and increase the cost of manufacturing 

and design. We would like to note the Board states the preliminary 

analysis cannot consider the -- did not quantify or monetize the 

compliance cost related to the RTT proposal. Industry will have to do 

some further detailed analysis on this issue and provide more details in our 

official response to the NPRM. But suffice it to say, this proposal is a 

fundamental change with broad sweeping impacts on multiple 

stakeholders. 

Another major concern that we have identified so far is that industry 

stakeholders have consistently stressed the importance of harmonizing 

procedures and standards with the European approach. We recognize 

that the Board talked about its efforts to harmonize proposed standards 

with European ICT accessibility activities. We appreciate the efforts to 

consider the issues. There are a number of key areas the Board chose to 

pursue. The European standard affords the design flexibility needed to 

achieve the desired outcome. Some examples of this are with respect to 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 13 of 24

the fact that the NPRM states in certain areas that it's similar to the 

European EN in that they both use functional performance criteria. The 

Board's proposals seem to be somewhat more prescriptive than those used 

in the European standard. Unlike the European approach, the Board does 

not simply outline the desired outcome. The NPRM takes a restrictive 

approach identifying the mechanism and solution by which the outcome is 

achieved. 

Another example is the user controls for caption control and audio 

description. We have some concerns that this proposal might be overly 

prescriptive in that it also lacks flexibility, with such a specific solution. 

This would seem to require manufacturers, at least in the case of 

smartphones, to specifically include a dedicated hard button interface for 

this functionality. This proposal is contrary to the outcome-based 

approach adopted in Europe. Furthermore it seems to be in direct 

contrast with the treatment the CVAA has given to this issue. These 

issues are critical as the marketplace for ICT goods is not constrained by 

geographic borders. It may result in outcome of an -- enabling 

manufacturers to design ----TIA believes the limited harmonization

approach is unsustainable for industry by requiring manufacturers to build 

devices specific to each region. These variations may ultimately limit 

benefits the Board intended to be gained from harmonized standards. We 

encourage the Board to adopt rules that support the concept of “build one,

sell everywhere” which benefit the overall marketplace for accessible

goods. 

In conclusion, we really want to thank you for the opportunity to share 

some of our initial views of TIA and its members. We look to provide more 

detailed feedback on the matters and other aspects of the NPRM during the 

comment period. We look forward to working with you on the 

development of the rules most appropriate and achievable for achieving 

the desired goals.

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Miss Bell thank you for your comments. You were 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 14 of 24

concerned with the costs of conversion to meet the standards. In what 

time could you provide those? What is it about your process of how you 

are determining what the costs would be?

>> AVONNE BELL: Well, we have had some -- like we have had so far one 

initial meeting with the members. I know the members are working 

internally within our companies to try to figure out more specific 

information on the exact cost benefits that something like the RTT 

requirement would have on their company, in they had to specifically build 

that into the design of their product. I don't have exact numbers at this 

point. Hopefully within the next month or so we can have some more 

specific information on that.

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Miss Bell. I apologize for the names I 

was slaughtering. My name is slaughtered as well anyway. 

(LAUGHTER) 

Up next is Terry Weaver, followed by which will be Jonathan Avila.

>> TERRY WEAVER: Good morning. Thank you for having me here. I 

am coming to speak. My name is Terry Weaver. I do have my own 

consulting company. I am speaking primarily as myself. I retired from 

the federal government three years ago and had something to do with 

working with 508 while I was here. My question, I basically have two 

points I am raising. I do want to start by saying that I am very impressed 

by the product. You guys did a great job. Way to go! I know it's hard. I 

sat in these meetings in earlier times. There are a lot of questions--there 

will always be lots of questions. My one area is in regards to questions 

one and two, talking about the RTT, which is a popular subject. I was not 

coming at it today in terms of the technology issue. My question was 

actually to address the usage of it within the federal space. I was going to 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 15 of 24

make it my comparison is, I don't know how many of you have been the 

recipient of or the transmitter of butt dialing calls. I know I get them. I

am saved from hearing a lot of bad things that I don't want to hear 

particularly coming from a teenager of mine because it's in a purse or 

pocketbook. I hear muffled voices or sounds but I don't know what they 

are saying and they can always apologize; they were at the library -- they 

didn't know they did that.

I also know that I like many other people have a tendency to respond 

quickly to questions, maybe sometimes too quickly with a little bit too 

much emotion involved. I will type a text message, and rescind it quickly 

before I send it. If we moved texting into everything that I put out to the 

keyboard -- it now shows up, I think we have a problem. I am hoping we 

are looking for an app solution here that would come in through the RTT 

process. We could have an app so that the federal workers have both the 

aspects available: they don't start having major problems -- problems 

with their kids because they are telling them things or hearing things they 

didn't want to hear from them. I am encouraging your looking for an app 

icon in that situation. I think there will be a lot of problems within the 

government space if we automatically transmit everywhere we are keying 

in. I recognize the connection to voice calls. I do point out we have mute 

buttons sometimes on voice calls too for that reason.

The policy area that I wanted to mention goes back to, actually to the 

importance of the -- the NPRM and the preamble. The preamble is the 

document that's going to live for a very long time. We look at it now we 

know what it means. I will tell you, having lived from the preamble with 

the previous 508, the sense of the Board’s intent is very important. When 

you are looking at and making changes to this I think it's essential that you 

clarify what the Board intends here. Don't assume the terminology you 

are using will be understood in 10 years. They will be looking for 

something in 10 years’ time. GSA, I hope, is going to incorporate it, and 

will work with the Board in providing guidance in the future. GSA does 

provide additional information to what can be a particularly dry document. 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 16 of 24

Particularly important is because the technology you are addressing in 

trying -- the importance within this document in the preamble is to ensure 

people understand the intent to not eliminate new evolving technologies. 

It's not as clear when you read the actual document itself. So my -- I 

would like to see additional language put in there that talks to the 

recognition that the document will not stay with the rulemaking. In the 

FAR it's going to exist separately, but we need for it to be continued on and 

be used in other matters also -- and that's it.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Miss Weaver. Up next is Jonathan 

Avila and followed by him will be Alejandro Moledo.

>> JONATHAN AVILA: Great. Thank you my name is Jonathan. I am 

with SSB BART Group Accessibility Solutions Provider. Today I am only 

speaking on behalf of myself as a person with a disability. SSB will 

provide comments in the future.

I want today to thank the Board for this opportunity. Thank you for finally 

moving this closer to the finish. We are very excited to see this. In 

general we are supportive of the proposed changes such as incorporating 

WCAG. I think I personally desire to have clarifications as on several 

topics.

I concur with Duff Johnson and his statements and am very supportive of it. 

I believe there are aspects of PDF/UA that don't cover color contrast 

multimedia and perhaps the visual display of color information. I hope 

the Board will look at those factors and see PDF/UA as techniques to meet 

the standards, rather than a complete set of standards that make a 

document fully accessible to all individuals with disabilities. I have 

questions regarding the software interoperability sections in particular 

Section 503.2 User Preferences -- aimed at applications that are also 

platforms, like media players, JAVA, flash, et cetera. It appears to exempt 

some of those from following the end user preferences for color contrast 

font and focus. My concern is that there is not a really good fall back to 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 17 of 24

make sure those things are accessible to people with low vision. So, I 

believe I want to make sure that we are not losing some of the accessibility 

that we had in the current 508 software standards, accidentally by 

rearranging things. 

I feel like we may be losing some of those. I know there is another section 

502.2 talking about interoperability of accessibility features. But if items 

are exempt from 503.2 I am not sure how 502.2 also applies. I want to 

make sure we don't lose access to these other platforms that support 

curser blink rate, enlarged focus, user control of contrast, et cetera. I

would say as a person with low vision, I don't want to use the high contrast 

feature. I want preferences to be able to set those colors. And if you look 

at software applications like Microsoft Word 2013 you have three color 

options in Word: gray, gray and gray.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> JONATHAN AVILA: And they are not very accessible for people who 

have normal vision. The only option to change is to use like high contrast 

and turn your whole display into using the high contrast settings of 

Windows. So I think we want to promote vendors to have more options in 

their products. 

Finally I want to talk about the functional performance criteria. I know 

some agencies rely on the functional performance criteria. Historically 

there is confusion about those -- whether you have to meet the technical 

requirements and the functional requirements or if you can't meet the 

technical then the functional. Certainly I think you clarified that in this 

document that you don't have to meet the functional if you have met the 

technical. My question is, what about the situations where the technical 

are met but it's not functionally usable by a person with a disability? So, I 

think, you know, I would like to see if that area could be discussed again. 

Finally the last part I have is regarding the standards. Some of the 

standards may be paid standards you have to pay for. Some of these 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 18 of 24

standards come from different sources, particularly in the hardware. A lot 

of times when you have a procurement in the federal government the 

agencies are putting all of the standards into the procurement. How is 

that going to look like if we have the VPAT updated? It references many 

different standards, you know how is that -- I am concerned there are so 

many different standards referenced it may be a challenge.

So, thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Mr. Avila. We are moving to folks on 

the teleconference line. First up is Alejandro Moledo.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Your line is now open.

>> ALEJANDRO MOLEDO: Okay. So “Hi.” Hello my name is 

Alejandro Moledo. I work for the European Disability Forum. The 

European Disability Forum is the umbrella organization that represents 

persons with disabilities in the European Union through their active 

involvement in policy making. 15% of the European population has a 

disability so it should be around 80 million people with disabilities. As the 

policy officer in charge of new technologies, I have been involved in the last 

phase of the European standards, the EN 301 549. First of all, I want to 

congratulate you for such a really good document. We also kind of envy 

your document because we -- we have seen that it's clear document with 

clear requirements. First of all, we just wanted to congratulate you for 

this. And we believe the Section 508 and the European standard are 

compatible standards. And I just wanted to stress that in case in this 

revision you find some items that are not harmonized, please don't take 

the minimum common denominator. Ask for -- for the stronger 

requirement. The European standard, unfortunately-- it's a good 

document. It includes many kinds of ICT, but at the same time, some of 

the requirements from our point of view-- from the point of view of users,

are not actually requirements. They are just recommendations or are just 

a way to create confusion in -- when used in the standard. So, my main 

point was -- was this. 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 19 of 24

A question that I would like to raise was about the Total Conversation

standard. When ICT provides video in high quality, why don't – why is it 

not required, the Total Conversion standard that could be useful for 

persons who are hard of hearing, deaf persons, and also other people? 

So, this is my question and, again, congratulations for such a great work 

thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Mr. Moledo. Up next is Ms. Ima 

Placencia.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Ms. Placencia your line is now open. If you can 

hear me please unmute your phone. Operator could we move on to the 

next person? Wait a moment. Thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Next person is Susan Malloy.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Your line is now open.

>> SUSAN MALLOY: Thank you. My name is Susan Malloy. I am 

representing the Rehab Assistance for Environmental Illness and 

Intolerance group as well as the National Center for Environmental Health 

Strategies. Thank you for this opportunity to share our observations. 

The definitions section of the document indicates that accessible 

technology is not to be provided only to people with certain access 

requirements, but for all people with all access requirements. In that 

spirit, please consider the following recommendations and determine how 

to include these or similar recommendations in the final rule.

Many reasonable efforts that could enable some people with environmental 

intolerances to live independently cost nothing because essentially they 

retain existing technologies or employ only the most straightforward 

modifications. As examples, keep landline phones as an accommodation 

in select phone booths and public facilities such as hotel lobbies, libraries, 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 20 of 24

schools, and federal buildings. Install wired buzzers and intercoms by at 

least one entrance to public and federal buildings with signage to summon 

a person to come outside to meet us, such as our doctor, a clerk, our case 

worker, law enforcement personnel, or our child. Install flashing lights on 

all of the equipment similar to ATMs. Permit us to retain plain 

incandescent lights in some public places and designate specific areas of 

some facilities WI/FI-free zones. Best practices described in 602.4, 603, 

and 603.3 -- we are to be granted outdoor appointments if requested in 

confidential setting as attainable as an accommodation when a facility is 

inaccessible to us. For example, so we can meet in our car in the parking 

lot of a hospital, school, or other facility. We are to be permitted to retain 

land lines for our homes and in public places for telephones and 

computers. Do not convert essential equipment that we rely on over to 

the grid of WI/FI and routers. We are to be readily provided information 

on levels of EMS and radiofrequency by manufacturers, retailers and 

procurement offices so we can make choices about what technological 

equipment to purchase or to use.

We need an exemption or at least a best practices policy to avoid smart 

features in kitchens appliances, lighting, smart meters, smart security 

systems, for the places that we live or work or have business. I don't know 

language that will fit into the Board's language or what section these things 

should go into, other than support services. Provisions ascribed are 

among the most critical we could ever have. Stating as much in the ICT 

document will at least serve as something of a placeholder for us while we 

hope that less problematic equipment with adequate shielding and better 

electronics are being developed for everyone. Thank you for your 

consideration. For additional information contact me Susan Malloy or 

Mary Lamielle. I will be glad to give you E-mail and phone numbers.

Thank you very much.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Miss Malloy. Up next is Elizabeth 

Kelley.
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 21 of 24

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Operator, if you have Elizabeth Kelley or Ima 

Placencia.

>> IMA PLACENCIA: Hello?

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Who is this?

>> >> OPERATOR: I'm sorry Elizabeth is not present at this time.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Okay we will take Ima Placencia then.

>> IMA PLACENCIA: Thank you my name is, Ima Placencia. I am the 

Deputy Head of Unit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the 

European Commission. We would like to thank first of all the Access 

Board for the cooperation during all of these years as reflected in the NPRM 

and the opportunity to participate in the revision of the accessibility 508 

standards and the guidelines. Let me start by congratulating the Access 

Board for the harmonization achieved with the European standard. I have 

two comments to make. 

The first one relates to page 34 in section H-1. It should be stated that 

the EN 301 549 is published by the European Organization and not by the 

European Commission. The European Commission did publish and issued 

Mandate 376 that led to the development of such a standard, as correctly 

quoted in that section. But the standard as such is published by the 

European standardization organizations. The standard is a voluntary 

document. In general, the European Commission can publish references 

to European standards in official journals when related to the use in 

legislation. That is not the common case. A final point-- more detail. 

In page 36 the use of cell phone technology in the U. S. is referred to and 

could be clarified to reflect the actual use of such technology. Thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Ms. Placencia. Elizabeth Kelley?
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 22 of 24

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Ms. Kelley is not present at this time.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Moving on to Steve Hviid.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: He is not present at this time.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Robert Naeve.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: He is not present at this time.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Is Kelly Buckland in the room? We skipped over 

him earlier?

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: No one is coming forward.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Is there anything else who would like to testify?

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Yes, we have one person in the room, 

Mr. Jamal Mazrui.

>> JAMAL MAZRUI: All right. I am Jamal Mazrui. I am a federal 

employee on leave today. I am testifying on behalf of Fed Accessibility,

which is a group of federal employees with disabilities as well as 

contractors and members of the public who support our cause; which is to 

advocate for the federal government to be a model practitioner of 

accessibility for people with disabilities. And that includes technology 

and personnel-related policies. It is -- it is clear that Congress intended 

the federal government to be a model practitioner of accessibility because 

of several sections in the Rehabilitation Act. The federal government is 

the largest purchaser of ICT in the country, and the largest employer. So, 

it really does make a big difference how well Section 508 is implemented, 

both to the employment of people with disabilities in the federal 

government, and to the market generally for accessible products.

We are very glad that the NPRM has been released and would like to 
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 23 of 24

emphasize that it's very important that this process continue with all 

deliberate speed. And be completed within this administration, because if 

it extends beyond this to the next presidency there will surely be 

significant delays introduced from the transition to a new administration.

It has been many years that federal employees with disabilities have had to 

bear often very poor implementation of Section 508. And to that end, we 

would like to encourage the Access Board to play more of a technical 

assistance role as envisioned by the statute so that implementation can be 

more consistent across the federal government. It is not uncommon, for 

example, for federal agencies not to have any stated method for filing a 

Section 508 complaint through their website. That is just one example 

the lack of seriousness with which many federal agencies are taking 

Section 508. So, to the extent that the Access Board can better promote 

best practices including meaningful complaint processes, that will lead to 

better implementation of Section 508. I would like to say that I am 

pleased with the WCAG reference but as long as we are going down that 

road, I would like to encourage more adoption of the other guidelines that 

the W3C has published in coordination with WCAG -- the User Agent 

Accessibility Guidelines and the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines-- I 

would like to see more of those concepts adopted. Also, it's worth noting 

that the Federal Communications Commission puts significant value on the 

importance of the accessibility of web browsers on all computers, but 

particularly on mobile phones. And it may be worth the Access Board 

devoting additional attention to the accessibility of web browsers because 

of the great importance they play today in accessing all kind of content 

through the Internet. I -- our organization will probably submit some 

written comments later. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Mr. Mazrui. We will take a 10-minute 

break. If you want to testify, please see Kathy Johnson to register. If 

there are commenters that would like to testify, please indicate so by 

hailing the operator and we will continue after the break.
United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM, 

March 11, 2015

Access Board Conference room Suite 800

Washington, DC 

Page 24 of 24

(Short recess taken.)

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: We will be starting in one minute.

Welcome back everyone. Rose could you see if anyone that we have 

missed earlier is here in the room, now that we have reconvened?

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Thank you. Yes, good morning folks on the 

teleconference who have not previously testified and wish to do so please 

press star 1. And meanwhile, I do -- okay. I see that Robert Naeve has 

just joined. We will give him a second to open his line. Mr. Chairman I do 

not see anybody on the call. But we will -- we will continue to keep trying 

Robert Naeve.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Is there anyone else in the room that would like to 

testify in the meantime? Is Mr. Kelly Buckland in the room? Are there any 

Board members that want to make any comment before we conclude? 

Seeing none -- All right. Well, I appreciate everyone who has come to 

this hearing today. We appreciate all of the comments. 

The public comment period is open until May 28th, so make sure that you 

get your comments in by May 28. We appreciate all the work, like I said 

earlier, that the staff has done, and all of the members of the advisory 

committee as well. If you have any further questions, please do stick 

around and if you have any written comments please turn those into Kathy 

Johnson. Once again, thank you for coming. And that concludes our 

hearing today.

>> ROSEMARIE BUNALES: Operator, thank you for all of your help this 

morning we are formally concluded please disconnect all lines.

(End of hearing.)