Page 1 of 24

30th Annual CSUN Conference, Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Diego, California 

March 5, 2015

United States Access Board Public Hearing on the ICT NPRM

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Hello everyone, the CSUN staff just told us that because of fire 

safety codes, everyone in the room needs to be seated. So I ask everybody standing in the back 

of the room to please come to the front of the room. There is seating in the front. If you would 

please come forward and take the empty seats, you cannot stand in the back. We've been told

that is a violation of fire code, so we ask that everyone 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 going 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 Communication 

Technology rulemaking. This is the first public hearing. 

Thank you. 

I want to welcome everyone to the public hearing on the Information and Communication 

Technology (ICT) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We'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 of 

you. 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. 

>> PATRICK CANNON: Good morning everyone. My name is Pat Cannon. Good morning 

everyone. 

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. 

>> PATRICK CANNON: That is so much better. Thank you. It's my pleasure to be a public 

member of the U.S. Access Board. It is my pleasure to remember very well what happened and 

all the good things that took place as Section 508 was evolving many years ago. It is a 

pleasure to be part of the process as the 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. I am 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 from the Fire Marshal. There is no standing in the 

back, unfortunately. 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 Jenkins. 

>> 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 years 

to serve on the board. We represent the public. My day job is with IBM. Because I work with 

IBM, there is a perceived, or there could be a perceived conflict of interest if I were to 

participate on this panel, so today I'm really more like the rest of you in the audience. I am 

participating today as a member of the public. I don't get to see the draft of the NPRM before 

you get to see it. I don't get to discuss the issues, like the Board 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 happy to be 

able to participate here. I do encourage you to comment, to compliment the Board on the good 

things that are in the draft and to listen to the other comments here. I thank you; Sachin and 

Patrick, for letting me say “Hi.” 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: I also want to acknowledge a few members of the audience. 

Where is Craig Luigart, who is the co-chair of the CIOC? Hello Craig. We have several 

members from the advisory committee who had 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. We 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 get 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. If you have not signed up to speak 

today, please get in touch with Bruce to get your name on the list. If we have more time left 

after everyone who has signed up has testified, we will open up the microphone for more 

people to speak. So if you are considering whether or not to sign up, please do register so we 

can get a good count of 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 regulations.gov. If you have any written materials, 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, so 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 lot of engaging and dialogue with the public members
Page 3 of 24

today. We just want to receive your comments so we can study them and use them when we 

prepare our draft final rule. All the comments that are being made today will be recorded and 

entered into the record, but don't expect a dialogue with the Board members over here. Please 

refrain from any, 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 Wayne Dick. 

[To witness] If you want to come forward. The next person right after that is Dr. Mark Maurer. 

Dr. Wayne Dick. 

>> WAYNE DICK: 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 Citizens with 

Low Vision. My name is Wayne Dick. I am a person with congenital low vision. As a member 

of the Council I am here to register my and our concerns to those rules of this ICT Refresh that

are intended to address our needs. 

From the perspective of the Council, they do not. Now, before I go on any further, I would like 

to say that I think the Refresh 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 vision we have a problem. The problem is something that's very straightforward

-The loss of paragraph 1194.22(d). That 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 paragraph, you can go into a browser like Mozilla, rock the style completely, 

enlarge the print as much as you want, not just 200%. I enlarge it about 500%. Everything

word wraps and you can read just like you're reading a book with a few less words on the page. 

Now, the Refresh 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 Section 508. It has 

now been removed and it has been replaced by a Web Content Accessibility Guideline Success

Criterion, 1.4.4, that limits the size we can enlarge it to 200%. That'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 criterion 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 Board to override its 

reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and insert the ability. We can state it in 

functional terms: insert the ability to restructure the page into a one column format, which can 

be enlarged, essentially 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 remarkably 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 

really 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 actually many 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. So, if you set the contrast at 4.5 to 

1, I've done it with members of my community, and they go “Ouch, could you change that?” So 

what we would really 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 serif fonts, some people like sanserif

fonts. There are many characteristics of fonts. Am I over? 

>> 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...going into the Web Content 

Accessibility Guideline Success Criteria 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. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you Dr. Wayne Dick. 

>> WAYNE DICK: You're welcome. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: The next person is Mark Maurer followed by Tom Babinski. Dr. 

Mark Maurer.

>> MARK MAURER: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, and all the others 

who have come. My name is Mark Maurer. I am the past president of the National Federation 

of the Blind. I am testifying on behalf of the organization. 
Page 5 of 24

The National Federation of the Blind has been invested in the 508 Refresh since our 

participation on the Telecommunications Electronic and Information Technology Advisory

Committee, and we've been closely 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 NPRM is a significant achievement and it will 

help the regulatory process, but these standards are used by other entities beyond federal 

agencies, and there are benchmarks which we urge that be adopted so that the entities that use 

them can get the chance to 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 Board to 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 multipurpose. 

We thank the Board for its appropriate response to the preliminary regulatory analysis findings. 

The analysis seemingly shows that the measurable costs of updating the standards to

manufacturers and agencies are greater than the tangible financial benefits. 

That updated standards will have benefits for people with disabilities, we do not accept these 

contingencies as accurate because we believe the analysis was a limited one, but the Board is 

moving ahead anyway with a robust set of technical and functional performance criteria. 

Accessibility 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 analysis 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 Board is indirectly improving the accessibility of this across society, and it is this 

investment that brings the ultimate financial returns. 

Now, we are also impressed with your comprehensive approach to interoperability. We think 

that the NPRM states that the Board considered requirements for all players, including 

accessible technology developers and that the AT industry should have some interoperability

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 media standards. Social media is a popular tool 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 anything on those sites because 

doing so would make them noncompliant and those companies would then feel pressure to 

embrace accessibility solutions. An acceptable, albeit unfortunate alternative would be for 
Page 6 of 24

agencies to refrain from posting anything on inaccessible sites indefinitely, assuming that 

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 and then justify their

violations because they say they can't control the companies. 

We urged Facebook to work with us on accessibility and it turned us down, and society would 

deserve it if it happened. However, we urge the Board to be realistic and proactively address 

the problem by adding provisions about how to provide equivalent facilitation in the social 

media space. 

We think that, perhaps, the UAAG standard, User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, would help 

here, and we urge that they be considered as part of the future work on the rulemaking. 

Second, the standards for software and interoperability are expansive enough to cover mobile 

platforms, but we encourage the Board to examine mobile applications more closely. WCAG

does not directly address mobile apps and a search of the NPRM for the words “mobile 

application” yields no results. While content delivered on a mobile platform or on a mobile app 

is technically still covered because it is web content, the accessibility solutions for mobile apps 

are unique and specific. 

It is 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 Dr. Mark Maurer. Up next is Tom Babinski and 

followed by --I guess Tom Babinski is not testifying. 

>> AUDIENCE: I have a question. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Up next will be Ken Nakata. And following Mr. Ken will be 

James Jackson. 

>> KEN NAKATA: Good morning. 

>> PATRICK CANNON: Good morning. 

>> KEN NAKATA: Okay. Let's see. My name is Ken Nakata and I'm the Director of the 

Accessibility Consulting Process at High Software which is now Cryptzone Incorporated. I 

have been working in the field of accessibility for over 20 years, starting first as one of the first 

trial attorneys in the Disability Rights Section 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 working 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. For instance I 

work with NASA to ensure that its grantees conform to all aspects of Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, including architectural accessibility and conformance with UFAS. 

>>SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Can you please get a little closer to the mic?

>> KEN NAKATA: Sorry. I work with public and private sector clients to make sure that

software and web-based applications conform to Section 508 and to the Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines, 2.0 A and double A. 

First I would like to congratulate the Board for issuing its Section 508 and 255 NPRM. My 

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 I understand the pushback that the lengthy 2010 ANPRM created, simply 

incorporating WCAG 2.0 A and double A by reference for technologies that it was never 

intended to cover goes too far the other way. My testimony today also echoes my testimony

three years ago at CSUN when I testified about this very same issue. 

First, WCAG 2.0 was never intended to cover software 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 people with disabilities in accessing the web--- and there is no 

reason to believe that these same issues are presented in the same priority with off line 

documents and desktop software. In fact, I think that there are far more pressing challenges in 

these other technologies that are either not present or have a much lower priority in WCAG 2.0. 

My written comments include many specific examples where WCAG 2.0 either 

overemphasizes some issues for non-web technology while minimizing 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 WCAG2ICT 

Task Force working group note. This is a mistake for two reasons. First, the task force’s note 

makes clear that it is 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 by reference for software and nonweb documents would be disastrous for the IT industry, government, and people with 

disabilities. The IT 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 WCAG2ICT 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 be a far less effective rule. Currently, the Federal government uses 

the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) for roughly 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. Sadly 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 attention. 

>> 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 2007 I graduated 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 applying 

for as many positions as possible and usually through online application systems. As someone 

with a learning disability, this could be extremely difficult, especially 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 accurately as possible, I did what worked for me in the past and 

what every learning disability specialist I spoke to about this type of situation has advised me to 

do. I took frequent breaks. On these breaks I would take a walk and think about my strategy

for applying for jobs but they almost always 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 system. 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 my 

chances of getting a job. I am very grateful for the Access Board's work on updating Section 

508 and Section 255. I am especially grateful for the pause stop high criteria in WCAG 2.0 
Page 9 of 24

which I think will greatly benefit individuals like me with learning and attention related

disabilities. 

While the new rules seem to address the disability problems I described, this criteria has a

critical assumption that means it won't provide the needed support for people like me. 

Specifically sites are allowed to time out if they warn users 20 seconds in advance and then 

allow the user to extend the time. This means that if I were applying for a federal job or a 

federal grant or using any similar federal system, 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 aligned 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 Criterion “2.2.1 Timing 

Adjustable” please do not include the extended extension. I've also noted that in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 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 disabilities. So because of this I would like to ask the Access 

Board to include reference to individuals with learning and attention disabilities in future 

procedural documents and consideration, if only 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 National 

Center for Learning Disabilities 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 Journal of Texas Medicine

has demonstrated that we make up 49% of the prison population. The American Psychological 

Association notes that we have greater stress and lower incomes. I believe strongly that these 

negative trends are a result of unequal access, in employment 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 I would also like to ask you to, again, not include the 

warning extension language from the “2.2.1Timing Adjustable” criterion of WCAG 2.0. Also I

would like you to include individuals with learning disabilities in your documentation in 

consideration of the future. Again, if only to mention that there is a lack of research and 

guidance. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 

Up next is Mr. Karl Groves and following him will be Mr. Richard Schwerdtfeger. 
Page 10 of 24

>> KARL GROVES: Hi. My name is Karl 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 always involved Section 508.

In 2006 I was excited to hear about the Refresh process. As a web developer, the advent of 

technologies like Asynchronous 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 quickly 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 response 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 committee had delivered their report. 

2008. (Pause) 2008.

The same year this nation saw its first Black President. Since that time, we’ve seen the 

overthrow and creation of governments in the Middle East. The US Economy dove into and 

crawled out of a massive economic crisis. Congress approved and implemented the Affordable 

Care Act – including all of the years 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 paid 

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 system in roughly 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 Local levels as well as higher 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 by their public sector clients that they have to conform to grossly 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 plenty of people today who will say that the new 

standards aren’t enough. Incorporating WCAG by 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 

severe 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 exists in Subpart B and Subpart 
Page 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 must make haste. Finish what so many people 

have worked so hard on. Make haste toward an actual Final Rule.

Thank you.

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Groves. 

(Applause) 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: I understand Richard Schwerdtfeger is not here right now, so 

we're going to move on to Axel Leblois. After Axel will be Ann Marie Rohaly. 

>> AXEL LEBLOIS: Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Axel Leblois and 

I am the president of the G3 ICT, 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 introducing

ourselves. We were formed back in 2006 to promote the disposition of the Convention on the 

Rights of People with Disabilities on ICT Accessibility and we have been working 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 may seem to be like a very distant topic given the nature of the discussion today, 

however, I want to dive into the issues of public procurement and ICT accessibility on a global 

basis. 

So first I go to 15 countries that have ratified the CRPD. The CRPD has very clear dispositions 

in Article Nine and other articles to ensure that ICT's must be made accessible to all citizens 

with all types of disabilities. As part of the policy making that is following up on the work 

done by countries of the CRPD, ICT procurement is now formally recognized as one of the key

steps. It is part of the guidelines that are signed by the United Nations to countries to report on 

their progress towards world CRPD implementation, which mean that all countries will have 

the opportunity for public procurement policies for accessibility. 

Second, our organization has actually designed and published a modern policy which has 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 played a critical role in apportioning public 

procurement from a government basis by inviting observers from different continents in its 

proceedings early 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 I think it is really

important as the U.S. Access Board contemplates the next refresh that the global dimension of 
Page 12 of 24

what you do here be considered very carefully, 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 

eventually be a very key development. 

In a very practical fashion, anything that can be done on one hand to keep technical leadership 

that the U.S. Access Board had for all those years, to ensure access to disability, but at the same 

time to ensure that there is harmonization with, especially, the EN startup which is now 

completed, is extremely important. 

For a person with disabilities, cost is an issue for everything, 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 authorization. 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. 

Thank you. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you. 

Up next is Dr. Ann Marie Rohaly and following will be Mike Paciello. 

>> ANN MARIE ROHALY: Good morning. My name is Ann Marie Rohaly and I'm Director 

of Accessibility Policies at Microsoft. Microsoft is committed to accessibility in the business 

environment and as an area ripe for innovation leading to the promise of future technologies. 

Microsoft supports robust globally harmonized procurement regulations and appreciates the 

work the Access Board has done over the past few years considering all of the comments on 

the 2011 ANPRM and for issuing the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

While we are still digging into the details of the NPRM, we have already 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 application of WCAG 2.0. Microsoft urges the board to consider the 

positive impact of on all stakeholders. Reducing fragmentation through complete alignment 

with the EN will result in decreased costs and increased efficiency, by allowing companies to 

build once and sell everywhere and will 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 by the May 28th filing deadline. 

Thank you. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Thank you, Ms. Rohaly. Up next is Mike Paciello. Sorry. 
Page 13 of 24

>> MIKE PACIELLO: Good morning. My name is Mike Paciello, founder of The Paciello 

group, also co-chair along with my colleague, Jim Tobias, of the Access Board advisory

committee. 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 finally 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 already been expressed this morning, I'm sure we'll hear 

some other very important comments. 

So one I want to thank the Access Board. I want to thank the folks, including Tim Creagan, 

David Capozzi, Bruce Bailey and the staff that have worked very hard over the past few years. 

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 Advisory, the TEITAC

Advisory Committee, for the hard work that they put in 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 seeing many of these aspects as part of the Refresh, 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 frankly, Karl Groves also mentioned, this process, this 

update Refresh 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 process needs to be improved. To wait seven, eight years for a standard -- as far as 

technology is concerned it is already too late. So many other things have been developed, so 

many other concerns involving the lives of various individuals with disabilities, including what 

you 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... mobility interfaces

...these are being designed around sensory protocols and whatnot. We can't wait seven or eight 

years. It is just not right. So I look to the Access Board to really give that some thought over the

next several months. 

In line 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 I would 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 Section 255 Refresh. We 
Page 14 of 24

need to understand that we are looked 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 by bringing in international colleagues into the TEITAC Advisory Committee 

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. Paciello. Mr. Richard Schwerdtfeger.

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Rich. 

>> RICHARD 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 software products. I personally helped develop the 

original Graphical User Interface Screen Reader for the OS/2 operating system 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 ICT with no 

exceptions. The new 2015 NPRM clearly indicates that the Functional Performance Criteria are 

only required in cases of equivalent facilitation or for functionality 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 interoperability 

requirements 502.3.1 Object Information, 502.3.3 Values, and 502.3.6 Text all have new text 

that requires them to also be capable of being programmatically set by 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 only 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 any 

changes to those items, not for AT to be able to programmatically set them directly. Both web 

applications and software applications modify states and the change in state is conveyed to the 

assistive technology via a notification 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 

respond to a third party 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 

vehemently rejected assistive technologies being allowed to change states in the browser for 

these reasons. Additionally, these features are not built into current platforms, accessibility

APIs, 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 harmonization with worldwide standards is 

of utmost importance for fair trade internationally. 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 initial 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 nonweb software and documentation where they should not apply where the European standard 

clearly excludes them from the requirements. Instead, the 508 NPRM references the WCAG 

note “Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies”, or 

WCAG2ICT, which 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 those 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 versions 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 serious 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 more 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 

personalization 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 years that help support this 

very large and diverse user group. This means we must refresh the 508 requirements more 

frequently – at a 3-5 year 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 guidance. We would like to work with 

you 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. The 

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 delays 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 Synge Tyson. Thank you. 

>> SYNGE TYSON: Good morning. My name is Synge Tyson. I have a diverse background 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 forward. 

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 unsupervised 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 supervisors and 

reasonable accommodation coordinators who have limited or no knowledge of people with 

disabilities. They have no knowledge of the needs of persons with multiple accommodation 

needs or knowledge of the requested accommodation to be implemented. 

Until the workplace shall comply with our accommodations and there is skilled help, and there 

are stiff penalties for agencies who do not comply, the noncompliance is the second issue 

leading to discrimination. Once a federal employee has not been accommodated with accessible 

content and denied reasonable accommodations, understanding that, first is a violation in itself 

of not being accommodated and the second is a continuing violation of the Rehab Act 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 effectively work with a specific computer 

program because it is inaccessible, and then denied or not provided training on an 

accommodation. Once a person with a disability is told that they have --excuse me. Once 

denied, a person with a disability is usually told they have the option to file an EEO complaint. 

That process is broken. I will not go into detail in this forum about why the process is broken or 

how. However, the end result is the employee 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 position and never be accommodated and not able to effectively and 

efficiently work, which has other implications. 

I ask that as the Board moves forward with decisions and implementation you address how you 

are going to make agencies do what they should already 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 former federal employee. These are issues that definitely

need to be addressed when 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 Martin. 

>> VINCENT MARTIN: Thank you. My 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 years I have achieved so far four varied degrees related to engineering, 

psychology, computer interaction and hopefully in two years I will complete my Ph.D. in 

human center computing. 

What I would like to do is thank the Access Board for what it has done, before but I would also 

like to echo what Mr. Paciello said earlier. We need to get on with it so we can get on with it. 

(Laughter) 

>> VINCENT 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 here 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 existed 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 

year and they had a great idea they could play with the old guy in the lab. 

With some guidelines and a little guidance if we get them out we can get on with it. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Mr. Bill Grubaugh. 

>> BILL GRUBAUGH: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Bill Grubaugh and I'm 

speaking independently. My background is Human Factors and ergonomics and human loop 
Page 18 of 24

systems analysis and I work currently with ICT product analysis in government educational

sector environments. 

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

>> BILL GRUBAUGH: Let me see where I left off by reading this thing. Okay. To begin 

with, I have a question, followed by a suggestion and I would like to end with a comment. I

always appear naïve, however I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts. Thank you 

again. From reading the 2015 ICT standards and guidelines and the joining of the Access 

Board and the FCC 225, it appears that the Access Board would be taking an advisory role and 

that the FCC would become the governmental interface between customers of ICT products and 

the customer premises equipment manufacturers. 

I mentioned this because within the legal authority portion, we read that the Access Board 

publishes, reviews, amends standards. The Access Board is required to develop 508 assuming 

it went to 255 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 ICT products in the United States?

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Grubaugh 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 Executive Summary 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 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 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 Section 255, the Access Board has the authority to develop what are called 

guidelines for the Section 255 rule. The Section 255 Guidelines are then reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission. It is totally within the jurisdiction of the Federal 

Communications Commission 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. We are revising 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. When the technology is 

purchased by the federal government, that is addressed by the 508 standards. When the same 

technology is sold to the private sector, that is addressed under the 255 Guidelines. The 

technical requirements would be the same in either case. Each rule then has separate sections 
Page 19 of 24

covering how it is applied, with definitions and standards of review. This is explained in 

further detail in the NPRM. Thank 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 work model in conjunction with the cost benefit model that is being used in 

the regulatory analysis 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 is that a product's cost may have seemed 

like a good value even if it is an expensive product in the implementation. However the 

guidelines that are set, the functionality bar out of one of ten could render a consumer product 

90% worthless to a customer with a disability. 

This may be exemplified 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, and at the consumer end $15,000. That 

presents nearly 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 Access 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 Vanderheiden. 

>> GREG VANDERHEIDEN: Hello. My name is Greg Vanderheiden. I am a professor at the 

University of Wisconsin, director of the TRACE Center and have worked on the development 

of many of these guidelines over the years and others that are based on the research from our 

Center. 

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 needed. This Refresh has 

relatively little that needs tuning up. Some of these tune ups are very important, but they're 

really small compared to everything 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 needed 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 types of things. So they'll pick out one particular 

kind and say well we can make a guideline like this, but it won't work in other places where

these would apply. 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 Refresh. Moving from “products” to “functionality” is absolutely 

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 especially 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. But this is not really a problem since WCAG is a single 

standard and 508 is a single standard, and in both 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, “Well, we didn't meet them all, but we met this many,” you could also report 

on WCAG. You could break it out in the same sheet that you're reporting the VPAT on or 

whatever. You can break out the provisions wherever you see it and it would work, then you 

could say “Well I didn't do these parts of 508, and I didn't do these parts of WCAG.” Having 

you break them out and stick them in isn't necessary. And as you pointed out, it would lose all 

the linkage to the supporting material in WCAG. So that problem is solvable and it will be 

solvable first time anybody chooses the reporting format. 

I also commend you for keeping WCAG intact rather than creating different versions as was 

done in EN 301 549. Breaking it up and making it different for those domains only confounds

things, as these domains are converging. We see a single entity like an eBook which is a 

document, but it also has web components. It has software, it has media, and they're all 

together and you're actually saying that 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. Users today can't 

even figure out today when they're on the web and when they're on their computer and what 

these are. So it is really critical keeping these provisions together. 

A lot has been said about harmonization, and harmonization is critical. It does not mean that 

things have to be identical. When you have people singing in harmony, they are not all singing 

the same part. Okay. Harmonization means that things do not conflict. There is no dissonance. 

The current 508 is completely harmonized with EN 301 549. The only 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 has 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 Refresh. 

On “cognitive”, there is much misunderstanding about the term and I would like to suggest that 

you consider the phrase “cognitive language and learning disabilities” in all of the places where 

you 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. Actually if you treat them as a unit you can get around this. 

In the interest of time I will send other comments separately. We do refer people to “tiny

url.com/508/ webinar” for a series of eight webinars on the Refresh 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, 

physical 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 everybody 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 Refresh and for the work that the Access Board has done to prepare this NPRM. My

comments today on behalf of the Web Accessibility Initiative of the Worldwide Web

Consortium 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 Communication 

Technologies. While there have been improvements over the years and attention to the 

accessibility of Information and Communication Technologies, it is still the case that 

accessibility may be overlooked at key stages of design and development. This still today

results in many barriers to Information and Communication Technologies, including the web 

usage by people with disabilities, even though there is extensive publicly available information 

on how to make ICT accessible for people with disabilities, including 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 hear is that international harmonization of standards is 

one of the best drivers of progress in accessibility. It enables 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 Refresh. 

This evolution of technology continues today. Industry has moved substantially to an analytical 

development process. 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 setting. 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 currently have a task force which we are hoping may in the future result in provisions that 

could result in deeper coverage in this area. 

Likewise, we are heavily involved in mobile accessibility for which there is already extensive 

coverage for WCAG 2.0 and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. There could potentially 

be additional information available in the future. 

Looking to the future therefore we hope that the Access Board continues to seek ways that it 

may not only accomplish a Refresh, but be able to take a refreshing approach on an ongoing 

basis, 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 ways 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 comment 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 make 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. We 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 any more people who are waiting to make comments or testify? Remember, any

comments that are made in the hallways are not going to be recorded, so you need to make 

comments by testifying here, or go on to the Regulation.gov website and file your comments. 

There are 90 days 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. 

>> KATIE 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 certain 
Page 23 of 24

things are not included. I have a suggestion, specific suggestion for including cognitive without 

going off the rails and slowing things down. That 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 recommendations and was for some reason removed. So we 

would like to see that be put back in as a 3 or 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. So we're continuingly adding the

new technologies without having again a new standard yet, right. We continually update these 

supporting documents as, you know. ARIA becomes more accepted as HTML 5 has now 

become a specification. So there is also an expectation that there will be cognitive techniques 

added to the techniques that exist today. 

Also someone talked about the mobile space. The WCAG working group also has a mobile task 

force. They 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 I think 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 generally every six 

months or so. Those new supplemental materials include the latest techniques. 

So I think that's a thing that I just 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. Any more comments? Thank you for your comments 

Katie. 

Any more comments? Anyone who would like to testify? Like I said, the public comment 

period is open for 90 days, so go to Regulations.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: I am Laurie Vasquez, assistive technology specialist at Santa 

Barbara City 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: This is a room where you're singing to the choir. But at the same 

time, I'm thinking to myself in terms of application, implementation, when this Refresh is 

done, how do I educate someone who is so involved in our technology on our campus and as a 

faculty trainer and as a DSPS faculty member? I am covering all grounds, so I really hope that 

the final outcome of this document will help me at the local level and people like me. That I 

can take something back to my campus and provide a source of motivation, inspiration, and 

implementation. 

>> TIMOTHY CREAGAN: Thank you. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Anyone else? Okay. Seeing that I'm going to have colleagues 

make final comments. Pat. 

>> PATRICK CANNON: Thank you very much, Sachin. Sachin called me last week with a 

provocative question and he said “Pat, do we believe in free speech.” I said of course. He said 

how would you like to give one? 

(Laughter) 

>> PATRICK CANNON: When I arrived this morning, I told Sachin I had 20 minutes 

prepared. He said we would like you 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. It is 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 thanks to all of you for attending. I want to thank our host, the members of the CSUN 

conference. We really 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 days. Please do go and file comments. We need to hear from all of you. 

Thank you. (Applause) 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: This concludes our public hearing.