Page **1** of **24**

30th Annual CSUN Conference, Manchester Grand Hy att Hotel , San Diego, California March 5, 2015
**United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM**  >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Hello e veryone, the CSUN staff just told us that because of fire safet y codes , eve ryone in the room needs to be seated. So Iask every body standing in the back of the room to please come to the front of the room. T here is seating in the front. If you would please come forward and take the empt y seats , you cannot stand in the back. W e've been told that is a violation of fire code , s o we ask that every one that is standing to please come to the front and sit down. We are going to start in about a minute. Thank you.

. . . >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Good morning everyone. We're goin g to get started right now. Would everyone please take your seats? I want to welcome everyone to the long awaited public hearing of the Information and C ommunication T echnology

rulemaking . This is the first public hearing. Thank you. I want to welcom e everyone to the public hearing on the Information and C ommunication T echnology (ICT) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). W e're grateful for all of you who have come to this hearing today

. This is a very exciting opportunity for us to hear from all o f yo u. To start off, I want to introduce some of the members we have here. I am Sachin Pavithran. I am the vice chair of the U.S. Access Board. I have two members of our staff here , as well as a fellow Board member

. I am going to introduce my first panel member here.
>> PATRI CK CANNON: Good morning every one. My name is Pat C annon. Good morning everyone. >> AUD IENCE: Good morning.
>> PATRI CK CANNON: That is so much be tter. Thank you. It 's my pleasure to be a public member of the U.S. Access Board . It i s m y pleasure to remember very well what happened and all the good things that took place as Section 508 was evolving man y years ago
. It is a pleasure to be part of the process as th e standards are being upgraded . We look forward to hearing what you have to say today , and I thank you for being here. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you. Good morning. I am Tim Creagan. Iam a staff member here at the Access Board and I am very glad to see everyone here today

.Page **2** of **24**

Let me repeat what the CSUN folks told us f rom the F ire Marshal . There is no standing in the back, unfortunatel y. There are a few seats down front. If people can come up and find seats, please do so.
>>SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you very much. I want to introduce one of our colleagues, Phil Jenkin s.
>> PHILLIP JENKINS : Sure. Phil Jenkins here. I am a public board member along with Sachin and Patrick. Like them we were appointed to this position by a President for four ye ars to serve on the board . We represent the public. M y day job is with IB M . B ecause I work with IBM, there is a perceived , or there could be a perceived conflict of interest if Iwere to participate on this panel, so today I'm reall y more like the rest of you in the audience

. I am participat ing today as a member of the public. I don't get to see the draft of the NPRM before yo u get to see it

. I don't get to discuss the issues, like the B oard and the staff and the other board members do. So I'm really glad that this came out , just like are you, and I'm happ y to be able to part icipate here. I do encourage you to comment, to compliment the B oard on the good things that are in the draft and to listen to the other comments here. I thank yo u; Sachin and Patrick , for letting me say “ H i. ”

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN : I a lso want to acknowledge a few members of the audience. Where is Craig Luigart, who i s the co

- chair of the CI OC ? Hello Craig. W e have several members from the advisory committee who ha d been on the advisory committee in the past. We have Bruce Bailey , who is an Access Board staff member , who will be taking up sign

- up sheets if anyone wants to sign up for testifying today

. W e have Helen and Alex from GSA who volunteered to help us with this hearing. I appreciate all of you coming today

. A couple of things before we ge t started , here are a couple of ground rules. Since we want to hear from everyone today as much as possible, we are going to limit the comments to about five minutes, so please try

your best to stick to five minutes. I f you have not signed up to speak tod ay , please get in touch with Bruce to get y our name on the list. I f we have more time left after everyone who has signed up has testified, we will open up the mic rophone for more people to s peak . So if yo u are considering whether or not to sign up, please do register so we can get a good count o f how many people are planning on testifying. We're keeping a transcript of all the comments that' re being made , and these comments will be entered into our docket at regulation s .gov . I f you have an y written materi als, please do hand them over to Bruce or one of us , so we can also make sure that it is entered into the regulations.gov website. The hearing is supposed to go 11:30. We have to stop exactly at 11:30. There is another session going on right after this , s o we will have to stop exactly at 11:30. So please respect everyone's comments and try

to stay within the allotted minutes. The whole idea of this hearing today is to hear from you, so we'll be just listening to your comments. There's not going to be a l ot of engaging and dialogue with the public membersPage **3** of **24**

today . We just want to receive your comments so we can stud y them and use them when we prepare our draft final rule. A ll the comments that are being made today will be recorded and entered into the reco rd, but don't expect a dialogue with the Board members over here . P lease refrain from an y, you know, heated discussions. We hope we can have a pretty good discussion about these proposed rules. I hope we can get some interesting comments today so we can get a good rule out there. I'm going to start off with the first person on the list to testify today

. His name is Way ne Dick. [To witness] If you want to come forward. The next person right after that is D r. Mark M aurer
. Dr. Way ne Dick.

>> WAYNE DIC K : I'm here. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Go ahead, sir.

>> WAYNE DICK : Okay . Thank you. I would like to thank the chair and the Access Board and the staff for permitting me to testify on behalf of the California Council of C itizens with L ow V ision. My

name is Way

ne Dick. I am a person with congenital low vision . A s a member of the Council Iam here to register my and our concerns to those rules of this IC T R efresh that are inten d ed to address our needs. From the perspective of the Council, they do not. Now, before I go on an y further , I would like to say that I think the R efresh document is really an excellent document and, of course, I think that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines have made a lot of moves forward. I just think in the area of low visio n we have a problem. T he problem is something that's very straightforward

- The loss of paragraph 1194.22 ( d). T hat is the paragraph which gives users the right to remove the author's style sheet and still be able to read the page. Now, with that paragra

ph, you can go into a browser like Mozilla, rock the style completel y, enlarge the print as much as you want, not just 200%. I enlarge it about 500 %. Every thing word wraps and you can read just like you're reading a book with a few less words on the page

. Now, the R efresh has removed this capability , that is , the capability to get single column restructuring of the page for the ability to resize to any

size you need

. I have taken it up to 90 point and you can get a good representation that way , and do so with word wrapping, without having to do horizontal scrolling. Now that capability

was given to people with low vision in the preceding S ection 508. It has now been removed and it has been replaced b y a W eb C ontent A ccessibility Guideline S uccess C rit eri on , 1.4. 4 , that limits the size we can enlarge it to 200% . T hat's like if you start with 9 point , that is 18 point font and it permits the enlargement to be sloppy so that you have to do horizontal scrolling.Page **4** of **24**

So we lost the ability

to get enlargement with an indefinite size with word wrapping , and we were given a success criteri on that does not protect word wrapping and only allows us what, for most people with low vision is a fairly insignificant enlargement. So that's a very

important thing, and what I would like to do is ask the B oard to override its reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and insert the ability . W e can state it in functional terms : insert the ability to restructure the page into a one column format, which can be e nlarged, essentiall y without limit. We have found that 15 characters

... . 12 characters to 15 characters on a width is about the reasonable limit we can do. There is a table in my submitted work of monitor size to number of characters per line and the associated font size that will fit in it. And it turns out you can get remarkabl y good enlargement with 15 characters per line and on an eight inch monitor on a tablet. You can get 36 to 50 point font that way . So, you know, we reall y are being limited , and what I'm asking for is the ability to put documents in a one column format that can be enlarged indefinitely

. Also, in 1.4.4 the issue of contrast is given as a hard number. Now, as it turns out, contrast is a variable thing, and there are actuall y man y people with light sensitivity that don't do well with a high contrast at all. Most of us do, but a lot of people don't. S o, if you set the contrast at 4.5 to 1, I'v e done it with members of m y community, and they go “O uch, could you change that ?” S o what we woul d reall y like is color control. That is the ability to choose your color. The author has the ability

to choose from 16 million colors. Why don't we? It can be done. The other thing is control over the font family . There are font families that bother some of us. And it is not the same for every person. Some people like seri f fonts, some people like sanseri f fonts. There are man y characteristics of fonts. Am Iover?

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN : Yes. You have 20 seconds to wrap up.

>> WAYNE DICK : Okay . So that is really what the thrust of my paper is about, which is going into

... and I'm very specific about where to do it ...g oing into the W eb C ontent A ccessibility Guideline S uccess C riteria that do not give flexibility of presentation to people with low vision , and writing rules that override those specific success criteria so that the ability to change the visual presentation is granted to people with low vision. It is something that has been lost. We had it before in 508, so we've taken away that capability

. >> S ACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you D r. Wayne Dick.

>> WAYNE DICK : You're welcome. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: The next person is Mark M aurer followed by Tom Babinski. Dr. Mark Maurer.

>> MARK MAURER : Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the B oard , and a ll the other s who have come. M y name is Mark M aurer. I am the past pres ident of the N ational F ederation of the B lind. I am testifyingon behalf of the organization.Page **5** of **24**

The N ational F ederation of the B lind has been invested in the 508 Refresh since our participatio n o n the T elecommunications E lectronic and Information Technology Advisory C ommittee , and we've been closel y watching the progress of this rulemaking and we are pleased that it has gotten to this point. I urge that we get added, though, the Notice

-- the N PRM is a significant achievement and it will help the regulatory

process , but these standards are used b y other entities beyond federal agencies , and there are benchmark s which we urge that be adopt ed s o that the entities that use them can get the chance t o know what the standard in the United States is.
I have a number of comments about the good things that we observe in this, and I will go over them quickly . We support the decision to incorporate the WCAG by reference. It makes it easier for the B oard t o refresh the standards in the future without having to start from scratch. We applaud the decision to transition from product based technical criteria to functionality based criteria, which also makes the proposed rule technology agnostic , flexible and multi

purpose. We thank the B oard for its appropriate response to the preliminary regulatory

anal ys is findings

. T he anal ys is seemingl y shows that the measurable costs of updating the standards to manufacturers and agencies are greater than the tangible f inancial benefits. That updated standards will have benefits for people with disabilities, we do not accept these contingencies as accurate because we believe the analy sis was a limited one, but the B oard is moving ahead an yw ay

with a robust set of techn ical and functional performance criteria

. A ccessibility

is an investment worth making regardless of the cost because the blind and the otherwise disabled have a right to equal access in the workplace and equal participation in society and moreover, the anal ys is cannot take into account the sweeping change that will come from this rule making. By improving the accessibility of information and communications technology in the federal sector , the B oard is indirectly improving the accessibility of this acros s society , and it is this investment that brings the ultimate financial returns. Now, we are also impressed with y our comprehensive approach to interop erability . We think that the NPRM states that the B oard considered requirements for all play ers, includi ng access ible technology

developers and that the AT industry should have some interop erability involved in the process as well. There are some items that we think deserve additional examination. First we project problems for implementation of the social m edia standards. Social media is a popular t ool for federal agencies to communicate with the public, but Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites are not WCAG compliant. In an ideal world agencies would not post any thing on those sites because doing so wou ld make them noncompliant and those companies would then feel pressure to embrace accessibility

solutions . An acceptable , albeit unfortunate alternative would be forPage **6** of **24**

agencies to refrain from posting an ything on inaccessible sites indefinitely, assuming th at Facebook and Twitter might never make the desired changes. Realistically the drive to use social media is too great. We worry that agencies will feel compelled to use social media despite the fact that it will put them in violation of these standards an d then justify their violations because they

say they can't control the companies. We urged Facebook to work with us on accessibility and it turn ed u s down, and societ y would deserve it if it happened . H owever, we urge the B oard to be realistic and proac tivel y address the problem by

adding provisions about how to provide equivalent facilitation in the social media space. We think that, perhaps, the UAA G standard, U ser Agent A ccessibility Guidelines, would help here, and we urge that th ey be considered as part of the future work on the rulemaking. Second, the standards for software and interop erability are expansive enough to cover mobile platforms , but we encourage the B oard to examine mobile applications more closel y. WCAG does not directl y address mo bile apps and a search of the NPRM for the words “ mobile application ” yi elds no results

. While content delivered on a mobile platform or on a mobile app is technically

still covered because it i s web content, the accessibility solutions for mobile apps ar e unique and specific.
Itis not enough for an agency to focus on ensuring that desktop and mobile software and content is accessible. There needs to be a benchmark for third party apps. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you D r. Mark M aurer
. Up next is Tom Ba binski and followed b y -- I guess Tom Babinski is not testifying.
>> AUD IENCE: I have a question. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Up next will be Ken Nakata . And follow ing Mr. Ken will be James Jackson.

>> KEN NAKATA : Good morning.
>> PATRI CK CANNON: Good morni ng.
>> KEN NAKATA : Okay . Let's see. M y name is Ken Nakata and I'm the D irector of the A ccessibility C onsulting P rocess at H igh S oftware which is now C ry p t zone Incorporated. I have been working in the field of accessibility for over 20 y ears, starting f irst as one of the first trial attorney s in the D isability R ights S ection at the U.S. Department of Justice back in 1992.
I was also a member of the ad hoc committee that developed the original Section 508 and I was part of the Section 508 interagency wo rking group to help implement Section 508 in the federal government.Page **7** of **24**

My work today

includes accessibility

in both the IP and built environments . F or instance I work with NASA to ensure that its grantees con form to all aspects of Section 504 of the R ehab ilitation Act , including architectural accessibility and conform ance with UF A S. >>SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Can y ou please get a little closer to the m ic?

>> KEN NAKATA : Sorry . Iwork with public and private sector clients to make sure that software and web

- b ased applications conform to Section 508 and to the W eb C ontent Accessibility

Guidelines, 2.0 A and double A. First I would like to congratulate the B oard for issu ing its Section 508 and 255 NPRM . M y testimony today , however, concerns the 508 NPRM and its blanket application of WCAG 2

. 0 A and level double A to the software and non

- web documents. I believe this approach is a mistake. While Iunderstand the pushback that the length y 2010 A NPRM created , simpl y in corporating WCAG 2.0 A and double A by re ference for technologies that it was never intended to cover goes too far the other way

. My testimony

today also echo e s my

testimony three ye ars ago at CSUN when I testified about this very same issue. First, WCAG 2.0 was n ever intended to cover softwar e or web pages as written. As many of the user interface or UI challenges are similar between web and non

- web technologies, these challenges are not identical . WCAG ’s level A, double A and AAA priority levels reflects the specific challenges faced by peopl e w ith disabilities in accessing the web

--- and there is no reason to believe that these same issues are presented in the same priorit y with off line documents and desktop software. In fact, I think that there are far more pressing challenges in these oth er technologies that are either not present or have a much lower priority in WCAG 2.0. My written comments include man y specific examples where WCAG 2.0 either overemphasize s some issues for non

- web technology while minimiz ing other key issues. So relying on WCAG 2.0 alone glosses over these differences. For guiding the reader, the NPRM directs the reader to simply read the W3C’s WCAG2I CT Task Force working group note. This is a mistake for two reasons. First, the task force’s note makes clear that it i s not a standard like the EN 301

- 549 that followed it. Second, there are many places where its guidance is murky or unworkable

— leading the authors of EN 301

- 549 to drop the success criteria from its standards for the non

- web world. Second, I believe that incorporating WCAG 2.0 A and AA b y reference for software and non

web documents would be disastrous for the IT industry , government, and people with disabilities. The I T industry affected by

this rule includes not just software developers but anyone creating a simple PowerPoint file for a government training course. We can’t assume that this audience would read WCAG 2.0, then read the WCAG2I CT Task Force note, and ultimately

interpret WCAG’s success criteria in an objective and consistent manner. These audiences need rules that are tailored specifically to their technologies

— again, the approach that Europe took when it created EN 301

- 549.Page **8** of **24**

While many

complain that Section 508 implementation by the Federal government could be better, a shorter rule would b e a far less effective rule. Currently , the Federal government uses the Voluntary

Product Accessibility

Template (VPAT) for roughl y assessing Section 508 conformance. If document and software accessibility are reduced to a single line item in a VPAT

— as the current NPRM structure would make likely

— Section 508 implementation, I believe, would plummet across the Federal government. Section 508 is already criticized as a “check the box” kind of requirement that vendors can easily evade. The NPRM’s approach encourages this bad behavior for lazy vendors or inattentive procurement officers. Second, reducing software and document accessibility to a single requirement would make it virtually impossible for agencies to compare accessibility features and fulfill their obligation

.... >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Mr. Nakata, could you wrap up in 30 seconds? >> KEN NAKATA: Sure. ...Obligation of procuring the product that “best meets” the Section 508 standards. Sadl y the ultimate loser in all of these scenarios would be people with disabilities, as fewer accessible products would make it into the Federal government and ultimately

mainstream technology

. For all those reasons I think blanket application of WCAG 2.0 in 508 would just be disastrous. So, thank you for your attentio n. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you for your comments. Up next is Mr. James Jackson. And following Mr. James Jackson will be Mr. Karl Groves

. >> JAMES JACKSON : Hi. My name is James Jackson. And I'm a person with a learning disability

. In December 200 7 Igraduated from college

-- the same month as the recession which would ultimately

lead to the financial crises of 2008. This is a very

challenging time for a recent graduate to find work. Getting a job means appl yi ng for as man y positions as possible an d usually through online application sy stems. As someone with a learning disability , this could be extremely difficult , especiall y because even a single error in an online application would exclude you from a position. To ensure that I filled out the most applications as possible as accuratel y as possible , Idid what worked for me in the past and what every

learning disability

specialist I spoke to about this ty pe of situation has advised me to do. I took frequent breaks. On these breaks I would take a wa lk and think about my strategy for appl yi ng for jobs but they almost alway s meant stepping away from the computer. Often when I got back I could pick up where I left off, but more often than not I would be logged out of the sy stem. Meaning I would have to start the application over again, which would usually necessitate another break. Needless to say , this drastically impacted the number of applications I could complete and m y chances of getting a job. I am very grateful for the Access Board's work on updating Section 508 and Section 255. I am especiall y grateful for the pause stop high criteria in WCAG 2.0Page **9** of **24**

which I think will greatl y benefit individuals like me with learning and attention related disabilities.
While the new rules seem to address the di sability problems I described , this criteria has a critical assumption that means it won't provide the needed support for people like me. Specificall y sites are allowed to time out if they warn users 20 seconds in advance and then allow the user to exten d the time. This means that if I were appl yi ng for a federal job or a federal grant or using any similar federal sy stem, the revised Section 508 guidelines would not protect my

ability to take a break , because I would not be able to leave my computer for more than 20 seconds without fear of being logged out. I recognize that there is a strong need for guidance like the WC3 for individuals with learning and attention disabilities but I also believe that when the need and impact are clear, and they are ali gned with guidance given to people like me , it is the Access Board’s responsibility to act now.
I would like to ask you when you incorporate the WCAG 2.0 Success C riterion “ 2.2.1 T iming A djustable ” please do not include the extended extension. I've also noted that in the N otice of P roposed R

ulemaking that individuals with learning and attention related disabilities are not mentioned explicitly

. While the term “ cognitive disabilities ” is used , this term does not include learning and attention related dis abilities. So because of this Iwould like to ask the Access Board to include reference to individuals with learning and attention disabilities in future procedural documents and consideration , if onl y to acknowledge and document the lack of research and guidance from law makers and international bodies. While our disabilities are invisible , I assure you that we are present. According to the N ational C enter for L earning D isabilities individuals with learning and attention related disabilities make up 15 to 20% of the U.S. population , making us one of, if not the largest group, of Americans with disabilities. At the same time, a study from the J ournal of Texas M edicine has demonstrated that we make up 49% of the prison pop u lation. The American P s yc hological A ssociation notes that we have greate r stress and lower incomes. I believe strong ly that these negative trends are a result of unequal access, in employ ment but also information technology

. Again, I want to thank the Access Board for the work that it's done and I think that there are many inclusions in the new guidelines that are going to be beneficial to people with learning and attention related disabilities, but Iwould also like to ask you to, again, not include the warning extension language from the “ 2.2.1 T iming A djustable ” criterion of WCA G 2.0 . A lso I would like you to include individuals with learning disabilities in your documentation in consideration of the future. Again, if onl y to mention that there is a lack of research and guidance. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Up next is Mr. K arl Gro ves and follow ing him w ill be Mr. Richard Schwerdtfeger

.Page **10** of **24**

>> KARL GROVES : Hi. My name is K arl Groves. I’ve been involved in Web Development, Usability , and Accessibility since the late 1990s. Living in the Washington DC area, and working in accessibility

my professional career in this field has alway s involved Section 508.
In 2006 I was excited to hear about the Refresh process. As a web developer, the advent of technologies like As ynchronous JavaScript blurred the lines between software and web and the rapid changes in mobile computing meant that the technologies that drove the old standards were quickl y made obsolete. The Refresh was exciting to me because the standards could be made more relevant. The TEITAC committee’s membership included representatives from industry , disability groups, standard

- setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, and government agencies, among others. Members were selected from applications received in res ponse to a Board notice published in April of 2006. In the spirit of international cooperation, the Access Board also included representatives from the European Commission, Japan, Canada, and Australia.
In 2008 I was also excited to hear that the TEITAC co mmittee had delivered their report. 2008. (P ause ) 2008

. The same ye ar this nation saw its first Black President. Since that time, we’ve seen the overthrow and creation of governments in the M iddle E ast. The US Economy dove into and crawled out of a ma ssive economic crisis. Congress approved and implemented the Affordable Care Act

– including all of the y ears of partisan fighting and surviving a challenge at the US Supreme Court and to date 7.3 million people had enrolled through the marketplace and pa id their premiums. Osama Bin Laden was successfully brought to justice for 9

- 11

. Barack Obama was re - elected for his 2nd term. And the Section 508 Refresh has still not made it to Final Rule. Why is it that we can see the creation and implementation of the most sweeping change to our nation’s healthcare s ys tem in roughl y 20% of the time it has taken to get to this hearing? NOT having a new Final Rule has resulted in chaos within the compliance space at the Federal, State, and L ocal levels as well as high er education institutions. While only the Federal Executive Branch is required to adhere to Section 508, these others have often adopted Section 508 and use it to guide their own ICT procurements. It has resulted in chaos for contractors who are told b y th eir public sector clients that they have to conform to grossl y out of date standards while their private sector clients want conformance to WCAG. I’m pleased to provide my voice to this process and want to encourage you to the best of my abilities to make haste. There will be plent y of people today who will say that the new standards aren’t enough. Incorporating WCAG b y reference means, to many, that it doesn’t go far enough for persons with low vision or cognitive disorders. As the father of a child with s evere learning disabilities, this resonates with me. But we must remain aware that the “perfect” is the enemy

of the good. We must commit ourselves to the pragmatic understanding that what the Refresh proposes now is far , far better than what currently exi sts in Subpart B and SubpartPage **11** of **24**

C of the Section 508 we now have. The lack of a final rule is, in my opinion, a failure on the Access Board’s part to achieve its mission to protect citizens with disabilities. You must not delay

this process any

longer. You mu st make haste. Finish what so man y people have worked so hard on. Make haste toward an actual Final Rule. Thank you. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Gr o ves. (Applause) >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: I understand Richard Schwerdtfeger is not here right now , s o we're going to move on to Axel L eblois

. After Axel will be Ann Marie Rohaly

. >> AXEL LEBLO IS : Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman. M y name is Axel Leblois and I am the pres id ent of the G3 I CT , the global initiative for ICTs. And several of our agent partners were part of the U.S. Access Board so I won't spend too much time introduc ing ourselves. We were formed back in 2006 to promote the disposition of the C onvention on the R ights of P eople with D isabilities on I CT A ccessibility and we have been worki ng at the regional center with government, people with disabilities and the private sector to ensure that the situation will be understood and implemented around the world.
Now , this m ay

seem to be like a very

dis tant topic given the nature of the discus sion today , however, I want to dive into the issues of public procurement and ICT accessibility on a global basis. So first Igo to 15 countries that have ratified the CRPD. The CRPD has very clear dispositions in Article Nin e and other articles to ensur e that ICT's must be made accessible to all citizens with all ty

pes of disabilities. As part of the policy making that is following up on the work done by countries of the CRPD , I CT procurement is now formally recognized as one of the key steps. It is part of the guidelines that are signed b y the United Nations to countries to report on their progress to wards world CRPD implementation , which mean that all countries will have the opportunity

for public procurement policies for accessibility

. Second , our o rganiz ation has actuall y designed and published a modern policy which ha s now become the official grouping for public procurement which refers to both the Section 508 and PN in its text. And I mention that because history in the U.S. has play ed a criti cal role in apportioning public procurement from a government basis by inviting observers from different continents in its proceedings earl y on. That had a big impact for the country to start procurement in a smart way and that is why

you see the EN start up today . In Japan, Australia

... we just came back from South Africa where we introduced heavy procurement in the legislation. So Ithink it is reall y important as the U.S. Access Board contemplates the next refresh that the global dimension ofPage **12** of **24**

what you do h ere be considered very carefull y, because it is our sense that long

- term countries will progressively

lineup with one single start up , probably if there is a standard that will eventuall y be a very

key development. In a very practical fashion, any

thing th at can be done on one hand to keep technical leadership that the U.S. Access Board had for all those y ears , to ensure access to disability , but at the same time to ensure that there is harmonization with , especiall y , the EN startup which is now completed , is extremely important. For a person with disabilities, cost is an issue for every thing , and the more fragmentation in the marketplace , the less you have for the cost of the solutions, so that is why I think keeping in mind global dimension of standard a uthorization. Whatever you -- we end up publishing as a rule is extremely

important. So our call is for the U.S. Access Board to do whatever is possible to go to world harmonization , if it is not compromising the policy of the view you are publishing.
Th ank you. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you. Up next is Dr. Ann Marie Ro haly and following will be Mike Paciello

. >> ANN MARIE ROHALY : Good morning. My name is Ann Marie Ro h aly and I'm D irector of A ccessibility P olicies at Microsoft. Microsoft is committed to accessibility in the business environment and as an area ri pe for innovation leading to the promise of future technologies. Microsoft supports robust globall y harmonized procurement regulations and appreciates the work the Access Board has done ove r the past few y ears considering all of the comments on the 2011 A

N PRM and for issuing the recent N otice of P roposed R ulemaking. While we are still digging into the details of the NPRM, we have alread y identified some areas of concern. Specifically , we are concerned by the requirement for real time text and inadequate harmonization with the European EN 301 549 standard that is most evident in the Access Board's proposed broad app lication of WCAG 2.0. Microsoft urges the board to consider the positive impa ct of on all stakeholders. Reducing fragmentation through complete alignment with the EN will result in decreased cost s and increased efficiency , by allowing companies to build once and sell everywhere and w ill also provide consumers with a more consistent user experience. Microsoft will be preparing detailed comments on these and other issues for submission to the Access Board b y the May 28th filing deadline. Thank you. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Ms. Ro haly

. Up next is Mike Paciello . Sorry

.Page **13** of **24**

> > MI KE PACIELLO : Good morning. M y name is Mike Paci ello , founder of The Pac i el l o group, also co

- chair along with m y colleague , Jim Tobias , of the A ccess Board a dvisory c ommittee. So it's a good day for us. I think if Jim were here, I didn't see him here so I'm not sure he is here, that we've finall y made it, so to speak. We have gotten to a point where we think we might see the end of the tunnel here, the light at the end of the tunnel.
I would like to just make a couple of comments. Really they 're more in terms of capturing some of the main points that have alread y been expressed this morning, I'msure we'll hear some other very

important comments.
So one Iwant to thank the Access Board. I want to thank the folks, including Tim Creagan, David Capozz i , Bruce B aile y and the staff that have worked very hard o ver the past few ye ars. I am also very

much aware of the internal committees that have been working, the government organizations, the hard work that they put in to getting to some wording here. I think all of them should be commended and thank them for all of their hard work. I also think it is important to recognize the 41 individual organizations that participated in the A dvisory , the TEITAC A dvisory C ommittee , for the hard work that they put i n to get to us a point where we have a standard, at least a federal standard that we can look at, one , that as a focus on harmonization of standards, and a stronger focus on user abilities, in the area of technology and disability . So I look forward to se eing many of these aspects as part of the R efresh , hopefully improving the lives of individuals with disabilities long

- term. So I want to make a couple of other brief comments. One, to emphasize something that Ken Nakata said, that is this process, and fr ankl y , K arl Groves also mentioned , this process, this update R efresh process is woefully inept , and it needs to be improved. And it would not take a whole lot to improve the process, whether we do it by reference to ISO or other standards, but this proce ss needs to be improved . T o wait seven, eight ye ars for a standard

-- as far as technology

is concerned it is alread y too late. So many other things have been developed, so many other concerns involving the lives of various individuals with disabilities, including what yo u heard again this morning in the areas of low vision, cognition, I'm thinking of individuals with various voice interfaces that we’re going to have to start looking for

... m obility interface s

... these are being designed around sensory protoco ls and whatnot. We c an't wait seven or eight ye ars. It is just not right. So I look to the Access Board to really give that some thought over the next several months.
Inline with that, take in the comments today , listen to the comments, give them thought, give them consideration but do not allow them to hold up this process. We need this mandate to be out, to be official , and to become law so that we can move on to other areas that need to be improved. Finally Iwould also like to highlight something that Axel just mentioned. I know that the Access Board is very

much aware of the implications, the international implications of the standards that we are producing here through the Section 508 and S ection 255 R efresh. WePage **14** of **24**

need to understand that we are loo ked up to as a nation in setting the lead and setting the example for everyone else. We need to take into consideration the international implications, much like we did b y bringing in international colleagues into the TEITAC A dvisory C ommittee but we also need to understand the rolling effects of what that means in the long

- term. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here this morning and I will look forward to hearing official comments. >>SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Mr. Pa ciello

. Mr. Richard Schwer dtfeger

. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Rich.

>> RI CHARD SCHWERDTFEGER: My name is Rich Schwerdtfeger and I am the IBM Software Accessibility

Chief Technology

Officer. In this role, I am responsible for providing technical accessibility

direction to all IBM softw are products. I personall y helped develop the original Graphical User Interface Screen Reader for the OS/2 operating s ys tem on the IBM Personal Computer back in the 1990's. First, I want to praise the Access Board for addressing our concerns with the 2011 ANPRM Functional Performance Criteria requirements, which were to be applied to all I CT with no exceptions. The new 2015 NPRM clearl y indicates that the Functional Performance Criteria are only required in cases of equivalent facilitation or for functional ity of ICT that the requirements in Section 508 do not cover. But there are some areas in the NPRM that are of great concern. The first is the misinterpretation of WCAG 2.0 for software interoperability . The software interoperabilit y requirements 502.3.1 O bject Information, 502.3.3 Values, and 502.3.6 Text all have new text that requires them to also be capable of being programmaticall y set b y assistive technology. The corresponding WCAG 4.1.2 requirement states that the ability to programmatically

set the states, values and text is intended for the content author, not for assistive technologies (or AT) directly and would onl y occur due to a user action on an element in the user interface. The part of the WCAG 4.1.2 criteria for assistive technologies is for the AT to be notified of an y changes to those items, not for AT to be able to programmaticall y set them directly. Both web applications and software applications modify states and the change in state is convey ed to the assistive technology

via a notificat ion mechanism. Authors and software developers create code that responds to user actions or programmatic "accessible actions" which will cause the author’s code to change the state or value and perform the notification action. Authors do not expect to resp ond to a third part y assistive technology directly changing the value of an accessibility state, like checking a checkbox, and then having to respond to it independently . The browser vendors saw earlier versions of the WAI

- ARIA specification that proposed a similar change and vehementl y rejected assistive technologies being allowed to change states in the browser for these reasons. Additionally , these features are not built into current platforms, accessibility API s, browsers, or applications and such a change would be a huge effort at an enormous cost. It would also be met with great opposition. Furthermore, we believe that was not the intent of the Access Board’s wording of this 502.3.1 requirement.Page **15** of **24**

The second issue we would like to highlight is that har monization with worldwide standards is of utmost importance for fair trade internationall y. The European standard, EN 301 549, also known as EU Mandate 376, was completed in October 2013 and the final standard was published in February

2014. In our initia l comparisons between the 2015 508 NPRM draft with the European standard, it is clear that the NPRM has departed from full harmonization in some critical areas. First, the draft does not explicitly exclude certain WCAG 2.0 criteria for non

web software an d documentation where they should not apply

where the European standard clearl y excludes them from the requirements. Instead, the 508 NPRM references the WCAG note “Appl yi ng WCAG 2.0 to Non

- Web Information and Communications Technologies”, or WCAG2I CT, whi ch leaves the criteria with questionable application to non

- Web technologies and content to the interpretation of the reader. We also found a number of other harmonization issues and will be submitting detailed comments and recommendations to address thos e issues for your consideration. The bottom line is that industry

needs to be able to deliver better solutions that will work here in the U.S., in Europe, and in other countries, as we cannot sustain the development, test and maintenance of multiple versio ns of the same product to conform to differing standards in different countries. Harmonization is essential to ensuring there can be products that meet the needs of people with disabilities no matter where they live or work. This brings me to the most s erious issue, one that is keeping Section 508 guidance from being up to date with the rapid changes in technologies as well as the rapid advancement in understanding the user needs of persons with disabilities. The Section 508 guidance must be refreshed mo re often and in a timely manner. For example, it is clear that you will be receiving many comments that the 2015 Section 508 NPRM requirements don’t go far enough in addressing the needs of people with learning and cognitive disabilities. Due to the person alization of the web and intense focus now in web standards on these disability issues, we expect to see recommendations coming out within the next 3

- 5 y ears that help support this very large and diverse user group. This means we must refresh the 508 requi rements more frequentl y

– at a 3

- 5 y ear rate to prevent the requirements from becoming outdated like the current 508 guidance. This would help alleviate many of the concerns of the technology industry as well as those who are underserved by today ’s guidanc e. We would like to work with yo u to see how we can make that possible. We at IBM encourage the Access Board to make it a priority to address these issues and any others brought up during this public review as quickly as possible to reach the final rule. T he current 508 requirements are quite out of date and the European standard has already been completed. Our mutual desire for improved access for persons with disabilities in the U.S., Europe, and around the world is at an ever

- increasing risk with further delay s in completing the refresh of the Section 508 requirements. Thank you very

much. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you.Page **16** of **24**

I am going to have Tim take up the next names. We have two more people that signed up and after that we will open up for more comments. If you want to testify , please do get in touch with Bruce so he can get your name on the list. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We call S yn ge Ty son. Thank you.
>> SYNGE TYSON : Good morning. M y name is S yn ge T ys on . I have a diverse back ground in the legal field and rehabilitation for people with disabilities.
I would like to thank the Access Board and the community for their comments and engagement this morning. These rules are definitely moving progress and accessible technology forwar d. Two concerns have been reported implementation and discrimination. The lack of proper implementation leads to discrimination. There are no or very few professionals in the federal government who have the human center computing expertise to work un sup ervised or create policy in good best practices across all federal agencies. From not having a dedicated 508 coordinator , to placing the issues of technical concern related to implementation in the limited to the

-- in the limited knowledge of superviso rs and reasonable accommodation coordinators who have limited or no knowledge of people with disabilities. They

have no knowledge of the needs of p ersons with multiple accommodation needs or knowledge of the requested accommodation to be implemented.
Until the wor

kplace shall comply

with our accommodations and there is s killed help , and there are stiff penalties for agencies who do not comply, the noncompliance is the second issue leading to discrimination. Once a federal employ ee has not been accommodat ed with accessible content and denied reasonable accommodations, understanding that , first is a violation in itself of not being accommodated and the second is a continu ing violation of the R ehab A ct of 1973, Section 503

-- excuse me, 501, or not providing accommodation for the first breach of not being compliant with the 508 regulations. For example a person with low vision is not able to effectivel y work with a specific computer program because it is inaccessible , and then denied or not provided trainin g on an accommodation. Once a person with a disability is told that they have

-- excuse me. Once denied , a person with a disability is usuall y told they have the option to file an EEO complaint. That process is broken. I will not go into detail in this fo rum about wh y the process is broken or how . H owever, the end result is the employ ee has to, quote, hang in there through the EEO process, find another job, retaliate against and because of the filing EEO complaints lose their job or stay

in the positio n and never be accommodated and not able to effectively and efficientl y work , which has other implications.
I ask that as the B oard moves forward with decisions and implementation you address how y ou are going to make agencies do what they should alread y be doing but not. When they do not comply , what are the steps and how will it be addressed that they are accountable for noncompliance.Page **17** of **24**

So these comments are speaking as form er federal employ ee . These are issues that definitely need to be addressed wh en we implement the new 508 standards and are moving forward with the overall technology

and compliance within federal agencies. Thank you. ( Applause) >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Our next person who has signed up to testify is Mr. Vincent Martin. Vincent Mar

tin.

>> VI NCENT MARTIN : Thank you. M y name is Vincent Martin and I've had a long distinguished career working with people with disabilities in all forms of technology

. Over the last 25 ye ars I have achieved so f ar four vari ed degrees related to enginee ring, psychology , computer interaction and hopefull y in two y ears I will complete my Ph.D. in human center computing. What Iwould like to do is thank the Access Board for what it has done , before but I would also like to echo what Mr. Pac iello said earl ier. We need to get on with it so we can get on with it. (Laughter)

>> VI NCENT MARTIN : Most of this stuff can be done quicker and the technology changes so rapidly it is amazing how quick it changes. Tomorrow afternoon I will have a 19 year old kid h ere presenting at CSUN who was a kid in our lab two years ago , who has now invented a screen reader that works better than most that work on the market right now and it will be free. He did it because he worked in a lab. If it wasn't for guidelines that ex isted before he wouldn't have this, but if we have guidelines that exist now instead of waiting on them to come out, we could have more things done. I am around kids every

day . I am 50

. We made the first totally accessible fantasy football league last ye ar and they

had a great idea they

could play

with the old guy

in the lab. With some guideline s and a little guidance if we get them out we can get on with it. Thank you. (Applause) >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Mr. Bill Gr ubaugh

. >> BILL GRUBAUGH : Thank you for this opportunity . M y name is Bill Gr ubaugh and I'm speak ing independentl y. My background is Human Factors and ergonomics and human loopPage **18** of **24**

sy stems analy sis and I work currently with I CT product anal ys is in government educational sector environments.

>> TI MOTHY CREAGAN: Excuse me. Could you speak a little closer to the microphone?

>> BILL GRUBAUGH : L et me see where I left off b y reading this thing. Okay

. To begin with, Ihave a question , follow ed by a suggestion and I w ould like to end with a comment

. I alway s appear naïve, however I appreciate the opportunity to express my

thoughts. Thank you again. From reading the 2015 I CT standards and guidelines and the joining of the Access Board and the FCC 225, it appear s that the Access Board would be taking an advisory role and that the FCC would become the governmental interface between customers of I CT products and the customer premises equipment manufacturers. I mentioned this because within the legal authority portion , we read that the Access Board publ ishes, reviews, amends standards. The Access Board is required to develop 508 assuming it went to 2 55 guidelines for accessibility , in conjunction with the FCC. The FCC is responsible for enforcing 255 and implementing regulations. Further, the FCC is not bound to adopt the Access Board's guidelines as its own or use them as minimum requirements. My question at this point is, will the FCC become the agency that shapes the future of accessible technology

and/or as I prefer to say

consumer I CT products in the United States ? >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Gr ubaugh for your question. What he is referring to is the distinction between two laws. As we discussed in the NPRM , this is found in the E xecutive S ummary at pages 8 to 13 which is available on the Access Board website and also at www.regulations.gov . What the Access Board is doing in this rulemaking is we are updating and modernizing the regulatory requirements for two different laws. One law is Sect ion 508 of the R ehabilitation A ct. The standards to implement the Section 508 law are developed and promulgated by the Access Board. Then each agency in the federal government is responsible for implementing Section 508 as applied to itself. With regard to S ection 255 , the Access Board has the authority to develop what are called guidelines for the S ection 255 rule . The S ection 255 Guidelines are then reviewed b y the F ederal C ommunications C ommission. It is totally within the jurisdiction of the F ederal C ommunications C ommission to adopt or not , such of the proposed Section 255 revised guidelines as they

wish to adopt . The FCC does not have jurisdiction over Section 508. This rulemaking is addressing two rules. W e are r evising the technical standards for two rules at the same time. Technology may have common technical requirements but be governed by different laws, depending on who is purchasing the technology

. Whe n the technology is purchased b y the federal government, that is addressed by the 5 08 standards . When the same technology

is sold to the private sector , that is addressed under the 255 Guidelines . T he technical requirement s would be the same in either case

. Each rule then has separate sectionsPage **19** of **24**

covering how it is applied, with definition s and standards of review. This is explained in further detail in the NPRM

. T hank you.
>> BILL GRUBAUGH : Thank you. That helps a lot. My second section is a suggestion. I would like to suggest that we explore or recognize the cost expense value and w ork model in conjunction with the cost benefit model that is being used in the regulatory

anal ys is stage.
I mention this because the cost expense value work may provide greater nuance in applicability when we are at that stage . What I hope this means i s that a product's cost may have seemed like a good value even if it is an expensive product in the implementation. H owever the guidelines that are set , the functionality bar out of one of ten could render a consumer product 90% worthless to a customer w ith a disability

. This may be ex emplified by

software and IBM accessibility centers, integrating accessibility in rapid development. IBM noted three points : catching a software bug at the product development stage cost $5 ; at the testing stage, $500 , an d at the consumer end $15,000. That presents nearl y a 3,000 times cost expense difference. In the end they trust that the FCC, as in my previous assumption, will encourage product innovation through the development of equivalent facilitation. If the Acce ss Board standards and guidelines are not adopted, then we want to encourage industry not to get stuck on standards as an excuse for non

- accessible products, but instead use the worth of their resources to build better products that are equally accessible and fully functional for all customers as customers, not necessarily customers with disabilities. And thank you again. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you. For the next witness we call Mr. Greg Vanderh e iden.

>> GREG VANDERHEIDEN : Hello. M y name is Greg Vanderh e iden. I am a professor at the University

of Wisconsin, director of the TRACE C enter and have worked on the development of many of these guidelines over the ye ars and others that are based on the research from our C enter. First I want to congratulate you on the progress that you have made on this. This is really a very , very

difficult thing and there is so much right and it really is need ed. T his R efresh has relativel y little that needs tuning up. Some of the se tune ups are very important, but they 're reall y small compared to every thing else , and I echo the comments of the previous speakers who urge moving forward and getting this done rather than beating it to death to try to tweak some areas.Page **20** of **24**

I do think there are some additional explanations nee ded in places. Since I know that often the critiques are the result of misunderstanding what it is that the provisions actually say , or not understanding that the rules must apply to all ty pes of things. So they 'll pick out one particular kind and say

wel l we can make a guideline like this, but it won't work in other places where these would appl y. So, we need some more descriptions in place.
I agree with the previous speaker that there are also benefits and cost savings that have not been captured and I will try

to send in some comments there about that. Overall it's a very

good R efresh . M oving from “ product s” to “ functionality” is absolutel y essential in this day , when moving into software and single devices that have many different functions. The use of WCAG for all three I think is really insightful especiall y given the convergence. Comments have been made about having WCAG cited as whole rather than broken out in different sections as in EN 301 549. B ut this is not really a problem since WCAG is a single standard and 508 is a single standard , and in bo th cases to meet 508 , you have to meet all the provisions. You can't meet it by meeting 80% of the provisions.
If you want to say, “W ell, we didn't meet them all , but we met this many , ” yo u could also report on WCAG . Y ou could break it out in the same sheet that you're reporting the VPAT on or whatever . Y ou can break out the provisions wherever you see it and it would work, then you could say “W ell I didn't do these parts of 508 , and Ididn't do thes e parts of WCAG. ” Having yo u break them out and stick them in isn't necessary . And as you pointed out , it would lose all the linkage to the support ing material in WCAG . So that problem is solvable and it will be solvable first time an ybody chooses the rep orting format.
I also commend you for keeping WCAG intact rather than creating different versions as was done in EN 3 0 1 549. Breaking it up and making it different for those d omains only confound s things , as these domains are converging. We see a single entit y like an eBook which is a d ocument, but it also has web components . I t has software, it has media, and they 're all together and you're actually saying th at this part of this page of this document would follow one set of standards and this other one would have a different set of standards . U sers today can't even figure out today

wh en they 're on the web and when they 're on their computer and what these are. So it is really

critical keeping the se provisions t ogether. A lot has been said about harmoni zation , and harmonization is critical. It does not mean that things have to be identical. When you have people singing in harmon y, they are not all singing the same part. Okay . Harmonization means that things do not conflict. There is no dis sonance
. The c urrent 508 is completely harmonized with EN 301 5 49 . T he onl y exception might go in re trainings. You will have to check that part out. There are no conflicts otherwise

. 508 does in fact repair several deficiencies in EN 301 549 , but it does it in a way that does not conflict with EN 301 549. You can conform to both of them at the same time.Page **21** of **24**

I also want to echo the comment that the Access Board should not relinquish its leadership in accessibility

and the tremendous efforts it ha s done in bringing 508 to the conclusion and getting the provisions right. Ensure that the final rule continues to be harmonized , but do not remove improvements or fixes that you have made in this R efresh.
On “ cognitive ” , there is much misunderstanding about the term and I w ould like to suggest that yo u consider the phrase “ cognitive language and learning disabilities ” in all of the places where yo u have “ cognitive ” because of the difference in interpretation. In fact in different countries what we call learning disabilities are called “ cognitive ” and vice versa, so that you need to distinguish the terms. A ctually if you treat them as a unit you can get around this.
In the interest of time I will send other comments separately . W e do refer people to “ tiny url.com/508 / webin ar ” for a series o f eight webinars on the R efresh that we are going to be doing on a TRACE webinar series. They will be held to help consumers understand what all this technical language means for the different disability groups , including visual, hearing , phy sical and cognitive. So the url again is tiny

. – “ tiny url.com/508/webinar. ” There is going to be a presentation and then a separate session for discussion so that every body can talk about these as well. Thank you very

much. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you. Our last witness who signed up for today so far is Judy Brewer.

>> JUDY BREWER : Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this NPRM on the 508 and 255 R efresh and for the work that the Access Board has done to prepare this NPRM. My comments t oday on behalf of the W eb A ccessibility Initiative of the W orldwide W eb C onsortium are preliminary and may be followed by

more detail or otherwise amended written comments. People of all abilities have an interest and a need to use Information and Commun ication T echnologies. While there have been improvements over the y ears and attention to the accessibility of Information and C ommunication T echnologies, it is still the case that accessibility

may be overlooked at key

stages of design and development. Thi s still today results in many barriers to Information and C ommunication T echnologies, including the web usage b y people with disabilities , e ven though there is extensive publicly available information on how to make ICT accessible for people with disabilit ies , i ncluding the standard for web content accessibility

from the W3C

- WAI . We therefore appreciate the Access Board's efforts to include WCAG 2 .0 by

incorporation by

reference. Among the strongest feedback that we he ar is that international harmonizatio n of standards is one of the best drivers of progress in accessibility

. Itenables sharing the advantages of authoring and evaluation tools and implementation support materials that support a common standard and removes the need for organizations to meet conflicting requirements in different settings.Page **22** of **24**

This NPRM importantly

notes that evolution of technology since the last Section 508 R efresh

. T his evolution of technology continues today

. Industry has moved substantially

to an an al yt ical development pro cess. The regulatory process is on a stable standard to reference. At W3C

- WAI we endeavor to involve the technical solutions and the guidance for supporting the accessibility requirements of people with disabilities in a multi

- stakeholder consensus based s etting. This includes in the area for instance , of cognitive and learning disabilities, where WCAG 2 .0 provides some coverage , but we would like to be able to provide more. For instance in this area we currentl y have a task force which we are hoping may i n the future result in provisions that could result in deeper coverage in this area. Likewise, we are heavil y involved in mobile accessibility for which there is alread y extensive coverage for WCAG 2.0 and U ser A gent A ccessibility Guidelines 2.0 . T here c ould potentiall y be additional information available in the future. Looking to the future therefore we hope that the Access Board continues to seek way s that it may not onl y accomplish a Refresh , but be able to take a refreshing approach on an ongoing bas is , and on a more frequent basis. Perhaps this could be done through earlier and more explicit use of equivalent facilitation and/or other mechanisms. We encourage the Access Board to seek more way s to do this.
I would like to again thank you , the Access Board , for preparing this NPRM , and also for your attention to international harmonization via incorporation of WCAG2.0. I expect that we will be providing more detailed comments before the ends of the comm ent period. Thank you. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Ms. Brewer. Thank you for all the comments, all the suggestions and also the criticism. We do need to hear all of those. We are urging as much as possible to get this ICT rule to a final rule as fast as we can, but I do

-- I'm not trying to mak e excuses for the Access Board, but I do want to make you aware that this is not just U.S. Access Board working on this rule . W e have multiple federal agencies working on this rule as well. So we are pushing as much as possible to make

-- to get this done as quickly

as we can do.
Are there an y more people who are wa i ting to make comments or testify ? Remember, any comments that are made in the hallway s are not going to be recorded, so you need to make comments by testifying here , or go on to the R egulation. gov website and file your comments

. T here are 90 day s to do that. We do have one more hearing coming up next Wednesday at the Access Board site. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Katie Haritos

- Shea wishes to testify

. Thank you , Katie.

>> KAT IE HARITOS

- SHEA : Thank you very much. I want to say

a couple of things. I think the Access Board has done an awesome job and I understand the concerns of many that certainPage **23** of **24**

things are not included. I have a suggestion, specific suggestion for including cognitive without going of f the rails and slowing things down. T hat is by adding back in actual functional performance criteria for persons with cognitive language and persons with disabilities that had been put in by the TEITAC in the recommendation s and was for some reason remove d. So we would like to see that be put back in as a 3 o r 0.9. I can't recall. So therefore if you are pointing to WCAG and its supplemental materials , as Judy pointed out the supplemental materials are updated every six months . S o we're continuingl y add ing the new technologies without having a gain a new standard y et, right. We continually update these supporting documents as, you know

. ARIA becomes more accepted as HTML5 has now become a specification. So there is also an expectation that there will b e cognitive techniques added to the techniques that exist today

. Also someone talked about the mobile space. T he WCAG working group also has a mobile task force . T hey

have just released a document about how WCAG applies to mobile, in the mobile space, but also they 're coming up with techniques for mobile. So Ithink that keeps you out of the space of having to do those things and rely on what the W3C

- WAI is doing by sticking with a solid normative standard , but its supplemental materials are updated gene rall y every six months or so. T hose new supplemental materials include the latest techniques.
So Ithink that's a thing that Ijust wanted to bring up , that there is an easier way to get cognitive in here without having to spend a lot of time on it. Rely on what the W3C is doing because they take specialists from all around the world and it is a consensus based organization, but then you don't have to deal with all that. They can deal with all that heartache. Thank you. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you. >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: All right. An y more c omments? Thank you for your comments Katie. Any more comments? Anyone who would like to testify ? L ike I said, the public comment period is open for 90 days , s o go to R egulation s .gov and enter it into the docket. There is one more public hearing coming up next Wednesday

. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Sorry . One more request to testify has just come up. Sorry

. Ma'am, could you identify yourself for the record, please.

>> LAURIE VASQUEZ : Iam Laurie Vasquez, assistive te chnology specialist at Santa Barbara Cit y College. We have identified a 508 compliance officer on our campus as of two weeks ago.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN : Wonderful.Page **24** of **24**

>> LAURIE VASQUEZ : T his is a room where yo u're singing to the choir . B ut at the same time , I'm thinking to m ys elf in terms of application, implementation, when this R efresh is done, how do I educate someone who is so involved in our technology on our campus and as a facult y trainer and as a DSPS faculty member ? I am covering all grounds, so I reall y hope that the final outcome of this document will help me at the local level and people like me . T hat I can take something back to my campus and provide a source of motivation, inspiration, and implementation. >> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you.

> > SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Any one else? Okay . Seeing that I'm going to have colleagues make final comments. Pat.
>> PATRI CK CANNON: Thank y ou very much, Sachin. Sachin called me last week with a provocative question and he said “ Pat, do we believe in free spee ch. ” I said of course. He said how would you like to give one? (Laughter)
>> PATRI CK CANNON: When Iarrived this mo rning , I told Sachin I had 20 minutes prepared. He said we would like y ou to cut that down by about 95%. (Laughter) In summary I would like to thank you for being here.
I will say that I have noticed you have been very thoughtful in your comments, very creative and innovative and sensitive. Itis obvious that you have reviewed well and have been very thoughtful in presenting some ideas that you're sure we will consider. I know from experience that sometimes working hard and spending your time, talent and energy in preparing comments and then making those comments and hearing no response is sometimes less than satisfying. Be assured that we have listened well to what you have had to say and do not interpret our lack of response as being a lack of interest. We are indeed interested in what you say and have listened and thank you very much, very much. (Applause) >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Mr. Cannon.
Our thank s t o all of you for attending

. I want to thank our host, the members of the CSUN conference. We reall y appreciate you giving us a space to make this happen. Once again, we have a public hearing coming up next Wednesday and we do

-- the public comment period goes for 90 day s. Please do go and file comments. We need to hear from all of you. Thank you. (Applause) >> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: This concludes our public hearing.