1 Public Hearing held by the UNITED STATES AC CESS BOA RD

On the ICT A DVAN CE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMA KING (A NPRM). May 12, 2010 Washington, DC
NEIL MELICK: Good morning everybody, we are going to start in about one minute. So if everybody could please take their seats. Good morning. Again, good morning, my name is Neil Melick, and I'm the public member from Florida and the co

chair of the I nformation C ommunication T echnologies ad hoc committee and to my left, your right, is Ron Gardner, who is co

- chair with me, and he will make some remarks in just a minute. Just a couple of housekeeping items ; we ask that you mute your phones or turn them off. That is also for the board, and I will do mine in a minute because I was just reminded so thank you for that.
Also, if anybody wants to do any flash photography, we ask that you refrain from doing so . I f you have to , at least let us know . W e have some people that can be affected by the fl ash so we ask that you be considerate of that as we progress with our meeting.

Like I said , I am Neil Melick, and we are grateful for the attendance at the second public hearing for the Advance N otice of Proposed R ulemaking for the ICT process here.

Wealso, as we move forward, want to thank those who did a lot of hard work on this . I t has taken us a long time

. W e want to thank the TEITAC , which is the T elecommunications E lectronic I nformation T echnolog y Advisory Committee

-- that is a mouthful

... . (Laughter.)2

NEIL MELICK: ...for their hard work , because they spent a couple of years before we started getting working on this . W e will go through some of the timetable here as part of the presentation, but we want to thank them and there's a few of them here today . I f they would stand and be recognized

... (Applause.)

NEIL MELICK: ...w ithout their work , it would have been a lot harder for the ad hoc committee to progress with their work.
At this time, I would like to recognize the vice chair of the Access Board , Nancy Starnes . She is here and I would like to ask her if she would like to make a ny comments

. NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Neil, and good morning t o each of you

. I want to echo the welcome that you have already received here, and hope t hat you are comfortable, and that all of your needs are being met. I also want to underscore the enthusiasm with which the Access Board has been approaching the ICT issues, and we are excited about the implications to improve the lives of people with disa bilities through our work . T hanks, Neil.
NEIL MELICK: Thank you. As a blind individual, I have a real interest in the work that we have done, and it is going to be an opportunity for us to hear your comments . B efore we do that, I would like to go dow n the line, and let all of us up here introduce ourselves, start ing on my far left.
J.R. HARDING: J. R. Harding, P ublic M ember. Florida.
GARY TALBOT: Gary Talbot, P ublic M ember from Foxboro , Massachusetts.3

NANCY STARNES: Nancy Starnes, Public memb er from Virginia.

JOHN BOX: John Box, Public member, California.

JOE CIRILLO: Joe Cirillo, Public member, Rhode Island.

ELIZABETH STEWA RT : Elizabeth Stewart, Public member, Florida. Good morning.

RONALD GARDNER: Ron Gardner, Public member , Sal t Lake City, Utah.

TIM CREAGAN : Tim Creagan, Access Board staff.

HANS VAN WI NKLE: Hans Van Wi nkle, Public member, New Jersey.
NEIL MELICK: At this time I will turn it over to my co

- chair, and he will have a couple of comments.

RONALD GARDNER: We ll, here we are at a public hearing here in W ashington, D.C. to talk about something controversial. Gee, what a surprise.
(Laughter.)
RONALD GARDNER: The wonderful thing is that you have come, you have come. This is a public hearing. It is the da te and time set to come and give public comments about what I believe every single person in this room believes is a very important issue. And it is one that will a ffect our lives. W hether you are a person with a disability, or not, this rulemaking will a ffect your life in one way or another. I'm not going to give you a big speech about how many people with disabilities there are, but there are a lot of us. And if you don't happen to be a person with a disability, your life is still affected by people w ith disabilities. This rulemaking is one that is going to impact more4

people than are just in the room, and so I want to emphasize the importance, underscore the importance, reiterate the importance, well, all right, get right down to it, and beg you to p lease contact others that you know are interested in this rulemaking. And get them to send in their comments. W e have until June 21st on this Advance N otice of Public R ulemaking

-- P roposed R ulemaking, excuse me. W e would like to ask you to get the word out further. There's still time. This is a public hearing and it is an opportunity for us to hear and visit face

- to

-face about issues that are important to you, or people that you represent. But the written comments are also very critical, and will be considered by our staff and by the board members as we move forward.
Now, without a lot of further ado, I really do want to recognize the work of our staff . O ur sta ff director is David Capozzi , and he is here with us ; quite frankly, he and his staff have done a wonderful job in supporting us, and quite frankly all of you , as we have moved this rulemaking forward. Please give at least an acknowledging round of applause to David Capozzi and his staff.
(Applause.)
RONALD GARDNER: Again, it is nice to be here with you, I hope that if we have time after all of those who have signed have spoken that, you will be thinking about additional conversation that we can have, and information that can be shared. Again, thank you very, very much for being here, and I will turn it back to Neil Melick.
NEIL MELICK: Okay, let me go through the ground rules here

. W hat we are going to do today, is , first of all , I will be turning the time over in just a minute to Tim Creagan , who has been the lead staff assisting the ad hoc committee in this process

. W e are grateful to him for his diligent work as Ron said about the entire staff.
But he will do a brief presentation. After the presentation , we will go through the list of those who have signed up to speak today

. W e ask you to keep your comments to 3 to 5 minutes . As you get over 3, and it looks like you are going on, I will probably5

interrupt you and ask you to wrap it up so that we give everybody an opportunity that is here , to have an opportunity to speak on the subject matter.
Also, you know, we want to announce that what we will be doing is listening up here

. W e are not going to debate, or get into the issues you know, that you raise, but we will be taking notes and it is recorded , so we can take the info rmation and we can use that to again, enter in the comments to our notice of public rulemaking . This is so we can better understand some of the needs that we may not have thought about , or the issues that may arise through the discussions. So we can address those as we progress further with these rules.

So if there' re not any questions related to how we will proceed, I will make one
more comment. I f we get finished with those who have made comments, we will take a break about 10:30, a.m., and looks li ke we will probably have enough comments to run through there, and afterwards we will come back and still open up the floor for others who may not have signed up , that may want to make comments. Again , we will try to limit the time so that everybody gets the chance to speak , so at this time I will turn it over to Tim Creagan , who will give us a brief presentation.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see so many familiar faces. W hat I'm going to do , for the benefit of those persons who may not have been involved in the process , is give a very brief overview of the history of this rulemaking , and where we are today, and as Neil said , the ground rules for today's presentation.
As we indicated, this originated with the work of the TEITAC Advisory Committee, which worked for 19 months from 2006 to 2008. W e went through many hours of face

- to

-face meetings, telecommunications meetings, e

- mails and they produced a 119 page report. The TEITAC report whic h is on the Access Board website, as well as 11 minority reports, all of which the staff reviewed. W e appreciate your hard work. That report was presented on April 3 rd , 2008, to the board. The staff then worked6

to produce the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was published on March 22nd of this year.
As Neil indicated, we have had

-- this is the second of our two public hearings. Wehad a public hearing in San Diego on March 25 th at the CSUN Conference

. The transcript of that public hearing is currently posted at the website : www. regulations.gov. If you click on the link on our home page, where it says “ ICT rulemaking ” , and click on the link in there for “R egulations.gov” , i t will take you directly to the rulemaking for this proceeding.

You can read the transcript for the CSUN comments. Currently we have about 40 comments in total. Weare about halfway through the comment period. The comment period will end in about 5 weeks , on June 21st. W e apprec iate any and all comments we receive.

To submit comments, the website you can go to , as I indicated is

“ www.regulations.gov”

. If you wish to send e

- mails , because we are aware that there are some accessibility issues with R egulations.gov, and we are on record as noting those. However, we were told this is what we have to use. The e

- mail address is

“ ICTrule@access

- board.gov” , so you can send e

- mails to th at address and staff will make sure that those comments are posted to R egulations.gov. All comments today will be posted on R egulations.gov.
You may also fax materials to 202

- 272

- 0081. Or you may mail, or hand

- deliver materials to the Access Board , in care of the O ffice of T echnical and I nformation Se rvices , United States Access Board, 1331 F Street Northwest, suite 1000, Wa shington, D.C. 20004.
After today's hearing, and after the close of the rulemaking on June 21st, the next steps in the process will be the analyzing of all of the comments we received. Again, I cannot urge all of you strongly enough to put your comments in writing and submit them7

into the record. As much as I have had many very interesting conversations with people, I remind you that it needs to go in the record to be considered. So we appreciate that

.
Wewill be analyzing the comments and will be developing the next step in the rulemaking , which is the N otice of P roposed R ulemaking , or NPRM. One of the things that we have become aware of is that there are a number of issues which were not mentioned in the ANPRM, which would need to be raised in the NPRM , so that they can be considered in the final rule. Th ese can include such items as standards currently in development, which we were not aware of at the time that we published the ANPRM. So again, any comments that you have as to things that we should consider, or add, we appreciate that.

Wewill also develop what is called a “ regulatory assessment ”, which is a cost

benefit analysis of each of the proposed provision. Wh en the package is complete d , it will include revised te xt , the regulatory assessment, and a p reamble to the rule , which will explain the or igination of various provisions . The package is then voted on by the B oard and approved , then that package will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for their approval , and then eventually published in the Federal Register as
a N otice of P roposed R ulemaking. W e will then have a subsequent public comment period. And then a final rule. So that is the outline of the steps from the end of th is current comment period.
For today's hearing, as Neil indicated, we ask that the speakers who are registered spe ak for no more than 3 to 5 minutes. Wewill go through the list. I w ill call each name if the person does not answer, I will move on to the next name on the list. Wh en there is time, we will keep calling the names to see if the person has shown up.
Once we go through all of the registered speakers, anybody who wishes to speak should come up to the microphone here, and identif y yourself, and then you will be under the same ground rules of 3 to 5 minutes to speak.8

A transcript is being kept, and it will be entered into the docket. Our plans are to have this hearing from 9:00 a.m. this morning until approximately noon. If yo u have any written remarks, or PowerPoint shows, please give them to the staff at the registration desk and they will be entered into the record. W e ask that you please refrain from reacting publicly to witness presentations or to any statements, thank yo u. Mr. Chairman.

NEIL MELICK: Thanks , Tim. Again, the ground rules are pretty well laid out. And again, if you do not have time to complete all of your statements, again, remember as Tim said we have plenty of time after June 21st to post your commen ts and we will use all of the information that we can. Weare really looking forward for the feedback and hope that we can improve on what we have done.
At this time, Tim will call the first witness.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the first witness I call Miss Pre e ty Kumar. Pre e ty Kumar , Deque Systems

. [No response.] All right. Mr. Chairman, I will move on. M s. Jennifer Simpson. AAPD.
JENNIFER SIMPSON: Good morning.

Neil Melick : Good morning.

JENNIFER SIMPSON: I'm Jennifer Simpson, Senior Director for Government Affairs at the American Association of People with Disabilities, the nation's largest disability advocacy organization representing the interests of over 50 million Americans with disabilities. I also co - chair and am a founding member of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology, also known as COAT, a 307

- affiliate membership organization, advocating for accessibility of advanced communications technologies. Accessible, usable, and aff ordable technology is essential and critical in supporting the full civil rights of people with disabilities.9

From nursery schools to classrooms, playgrounds, airports, shopping malls, medical settings, homes, workplaces, entertainment arenas, and just a bout any other area of 21st century life, electronic and information technology is inextricably woven into the fabric of our lives as a critical component. Technology is also a powerful force of social change. It is only right in a civil society for the products, services, application s , and electronic interactions and interfaces to be accessible and available to every member of our society.
My two main points: History shows us that market forces rarely drive accessibility and usability of technology in , for instance, when they are open codes, open sources and a general understanding of the need. Furthermore, one size doesn't fit all. Disability manifestation is diverse ranging through vision, hearing, motor, intellectual, motor, and other functional a reas of limitation that other individuals may experience. For these reasons the Access Board's ICT rules will play a crucial role in staking out what accessibility and usability looks like.
All of us know for instance, that once upon a time, a long time ago, in the last century, phone calls were the provisions of plain old telephone service providers and phone devices had 3

- digit phone numbers, live operators and you had to make a reservation for a long distance call. Today, we don't remember those time s. It is completely transform e d from wireless and internet connection to converged devices with multiple functions and features and software applications that link me visually with anybody almost for free anywhere on planet earth. It is a completely different situation that we are in, and this trend is continuing.
Television viewing on a wireless phone, yes; phone call via my game box, yes; kiosks telling me I left the change in the machine to pick it up, yes; point

- of

- sale devices wanting my PIN nu mber, yes; health information technology with interfaces, all of these must be accessible and usable to people with disabilities. Wh ether it is person

- to

person, person - to

- machine, machine

- to

- person, machine

- to

- machine, network

- to

-10

network, new forms of th e human experience with electronic and information technology
are occurring, and these humans include those of us with disabilities.
Therefore, AAPD encourages and supports the Access Board in a functional approach to its rules. And we encourage you to ensure that the rules are broad in scope, in terms of the advanced communications and electronic information technology equipment and services that you cover. They should not be limited in approach to what is currently available but should be mindful that these rules should also cover new technology tools, or they will risk being obsolete and act as a brake on innovation at the very start. The rules must be brought into scope and we ask you to do that. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on our sum mary and thoughts in regard to the context and scope and we do intend to file more detailed comments in the first round. Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Kevin Maher. American Hotel and Lodging Association, Kevin Maher.
KEVIN MAHER: Thank yo u. On behalf of the American Hotel & Lodging Association, I would like to thank the Access Board for the opportunity to comment on the proposed ADA Title III guidelines for self

- service machines for ticketing, checking in, check out, seat selection , board ing passes , and ordering foods in restaurants and cafeterias. Weare the sole national association represent i ng members from all sectors in the lodging industry. Our members consist of individual property owners and are operators, as well as hotel compan ies, that own and/or operate lodging facilities throughout the United States. Many of our members are small businesses. W e at AHLA believe that the accessibility requirements that a ffect our members should be clear and easily understood. To that end, AH LA generally supports the concept of having guidelines for self

- service equipment so that our members know what types of machines they must have in their facilities to ensure that their guests have equal access to their goods and services. That said, AHLA does not believe that the proposed guidelines for self

- service machines accomplish these objectives. The proposed rule11

states that: "W here self

- service machines other than automatic teller machines and fare machines covered by 220.1 must meet the definit ion of information and communication technology at 36 CFR, part 1194, and that they are used for ticketing, check in, or check out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. At least one of each type provided at each location shall comply with the provisions of 36 CFR, part 1194, chapters 3 through 9. ” The requirements of chapters 3 through 9 span more than 56 pages. Those 56 pages of requirements are highly technical and from the feedback that we have received from lawyers, who are very familiar with the current ADA standards , largely are incomprehensible. The imposing and directing of manufacturers and purchasers of these machines to 56 pages of requirements, and putting the burden on them to figure out what requi rements apply, and what requirements do not apply, is unworkable. Our members have neither the resources nor the expertise to independently assess whether a piece of self

- service equipment they are purchasing or leasing complies with 56 pages of potential requirements. But this is what they will have to do in order to ensure that the equipment can be used in their facility. AHLA believes that this approach is unfair to our members and will not result in a shared goal for equal access to individuals with disabilities. The Access Board has in the past been able to develop standards for other self

- service machines that are not unreasonably complex. For example, the requirements for ATMs are only three pages long. AHLA urges the Access Board to take a simi lar approach for other types of self

- service machines. Each type of self

- service equipment, for example, point

of

- sale devices, self

- check

- out machine s at stores or self

- check

- in machines at hotels, this is covered and should have its own set of rules, so that our members do not have to determine which of the 56 pages of the requirements apply to a particular type of self

service equipment.
The current approach will cause confusion and significant increase in the likelihood of unintended noncompliance. Noncompliance will result in a liability for our members because they are the ones who are responsible for complying with Title III of the ADA; not the manufacturers.12

Wealso urge the Access Board to reach out to specific manufacturers of each type of se lf

- service machines to be covered to obtain their comments on the requirements and their impact from a cost and technological perspective. Although we do not know what involvement, if any, the manufacturers of covered self

- service machines had in developi ng this standards, it is our sense that most are not even aware that the proposed standards have been issued. Once they become aware of the proposed standards, they must analyze which of the 56 pages of standards apply to the machine that they manufacture , and must analyze how the proposed standards will impact the current machines from a cost and manufacturing perspective.

And a 90

- day comment period to answer these questions is inadequate. I would like to close by saying in this difficult economic env ironment self

- service machines can and do play an important role in delivering greater efficiency for our members and guests. However, if the accessibility requirements are not documented our members will not be able to meaningfully apply them in selectin g self

- service equipment.

Weurge you to simplify and clarify the approach and to seek input outside the constraints of the 90

- day public comment period, thank you very much.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you

. Mr. Eduardo Meza

- Etienne. TecAccess. Mr. Eduardo Meza

- Etienne TecAccess. [No Response.] Jim M ueller

.
JIM MUELLER : Good morning.

TIM CREAGAN : Good morning.

JIM MUELLER : Thanks for the opportunity to be here , although I have to tell you; where I sit it is a little imposing to sit in front of you

. I will forge ahead anyway. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and thanks to the board and the TEITAC for all of this hard work. It is evidence in the guidelines that have been presented to date

. I'm looking forward to seeing how they are refined. I'm a product designer , one of13

the few , I guess , in this room. I have been since 1974. And it is not really important that you know too much about what product designers do , but they build pretty much everything that we use or try to use in our daily lives. And I should tell you that there's really quite a vacuum in guidelines to product designers as to how to design anything to include people with a variety of disabilities. Regardless of EIT, there's all of the other things that product designe rs get very little training, and resources in and I should tell you that Section 255 and 508 have been used not only by designers of EIT, but other products and services that in a vacuum really these guidelines provide some excellent direction for designers. I should say they are pretty widely applied.
I'm speaking today on behalf of the R ehabilitation E ngineering R esearch C enter for W ireless T echnology, in Atlanta. I serve as a project director there and of user research and have done so since 2001 . T oday I would like to specifically address the guidelines that address users with cognitive intellectual disabilities. Since 2001, the W ireless RERC has been conducting a survey on people with disabilities about their use or nonuse of electronic and inform ation technology, specifically wireless.

Wehave revised the survey periodically, and at the advi c e of both customers and industry, and in its most recent iteration, which is from April 2007, to April of this year, we have received about 1 , 858 responses.
The survey includes a question about any cognitive , physical, or sensory disabilities that the Respondents have, and of those 1 , 858, 300 told us that they have some limitation in thinking , remembering , or other kinds of cognitive limitations. This
survey also asks what would make your wireless devices easier to use. As you might imagine we get a great deal of response in that category, and some of the responses do reflect the TEITAC 's stance that design standards that meet the needs of people with, say , sensory and physical disabilities , often also meet the needs of people with cognitive disabilities.14

For example, some of our Respondents have called for larger text on controls, larger display, shapes that are easier to grip more securely, voice input and output, greater volume capacity and control.
Interestingly , as a sideline, many of these features are already available in the devices that they currently have and they are unaware of their presence, w hich I think is important to note. On the other hand , these Respondents also talk about frustrations that they face in using the technology . As it becomes more powerful, they feel less powerful. Some feel powerless. One respondent actually told us she got so frustrated that she now uses a F ire F ly [m obile phone] , which she point ed ly said , “... I s designed for preschoolers. ” This was her defense against what she called “future creep ” . But specifically , they note things like the need for repeated personal instruction on how to do simple tasks ; frustration with non

- intuitive multistep processes in doing relatively simple things ; c onfusion over delays in response of the device to their input, or lack of feedback at all to their controlled inputs. Or the kinds of things that we all have faced, I'm sure from time to time. They are painfully aware that they are already using , even in the case of some of the simplest devices , only a fraction of the capabilities of their technologies. Last summer we explored usability issues of touch screen devices li ke the iPhone, and Blackberry Storm with a group of our consumer advisors , including people with cognitive limitations primarily due to stroke, learning disabilities or acquired brain injuries.
Although some of the same frustrations that I have already m entioned surfaced in this study, we noticed that the tactile and visual feedback of the Blackberry Storm interface for example , was much appreciated by all these people with cognitive limitations. The clever graphics of the iPhone and the processes that m apped things that they are familiar with, and novice users who were intimidated by something as
vau n ted as the iPhone , they felt they were able to start proce ss ing and using that technology immediately , which was really heartening to us. It is consumer in sights that are unique to people with cognitive limitations that move us to make the following three recommendations to the board.15

Number 1, is to amend the organizational approach of the guidelines, to call attention to those provisions for people with physical or sensory disabilities, that are also deemed to enhance usability for people with cognitive disabilities. S o that these guidelines will be very visible.
Second, consider , as suggested by some committee members , addressing the size and diversity of this user population by establishing more w ieldy subsets . I n other words, for example , “ people with memory limitations ” as a user group, people with

“ language limitations ” as a separate group, “ learning limitations ” as a separate group and establishin g guidelines to meet each of those . F inally , continue to promote additional research towards those testable criteria that we are all looking for on usability by vital people with cognitive limitations . T hose are going to be incremental steps towards achi eving some parity in guidance on designing for people with cognitive limitations as well as those with physical and sensory limitations, but even that incremental progress we think is vital. It not only stimulate s that ongoing dialogue that is going to be necessary for further progress, but it helps to focus the attention of designers and their clients on this large and growing segment of the population. Thank you very much.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. D uff Johnson , APPLIGENT Document Solutions, Mr. D uff Johnson. T hank you.
DUFF JOHNSON: Thank you very much to the board. My name is Duff Johnson; I chair the ISO / CD working committee , which is a committee draft of the oncoming International standard for accessible PDF. I'm also the vice chair for t he US committee for ISO 32000, which is the standard

-- which is the PDF standard.
Mr. Chairman, members of the US Access Board, it is an honor to be here today to discuss the refresh of Section 508 as it pertains specifically to the PDF file format. I' m here to offer my support for the adoption of PDF /U A and the revised IC T standards16

for accessible PDF. Adobe Systems invented the portable document format known as PDF. The technology is widely used in government and business because PDF delivers a relia ble viewing and printing experience across multiple computing platforms. The electronic equivalent of paper, PDF is a final form media for official or formal content. That is probably why the very first PDF file was an IRS F orm 1040.
(Laughter.)

DUFF JOHNSON: The PDF format is no longer owned or controlled by Adobe Systems . I t is entirely managed by the ISO 32000. Today PDF is the dominant electronic document format with website and servers and individual computers around the world replete with PDF files. Wh en it comes to accessib i lity, PDF has a checkered past . P rior to 2000 , there was literally no way to make an accessible PDF file. The semantic structures necessary to build up words from characters, lines from words , and paragraphs from lines, simply did not exist in PDF. Wh en Adobe Systems released Acrobat 5 , for the first time it became possible to structure and tag PDF files. This was an important innovation because tagged PDFs are capable of delivering text and other context in correct order. In a tagged PDF , logical structure such as headings, lists, tables and form fields are available to assistive technologies. PDF is internally complex , and the format ’ s capabilities are both broad and deep. As such, it has been a time

consuming chal lenge to set clear standards for making PDF documents and forms accessible.

AI I M, the industry association for electronic content management, oversees the representation of US interests in international standards for electronic content at the ISO level. AI I M began the PDF /U niversal Accessibility S tandards project in 2004 to establish norms for accessible PDF files. PDF / UA is fairly regarded as a PDF

- specific implementation of W CA G 2.0. PDF files that comply with PDF / UA will also comply with WCAG 2.0. PDF / UA committees are open to any interested observers or participants. Both Adobe Systems and Microsoft are represented on both the US and international PDF/UA committees. A number of the other software developers, nonprofit17

organizations, and individua ls have participated in these committees over time. PDF / UA ’s focus is on the PDF file and conforming R eader technologies. As such , the bulk of the standard is devoted to technical criteria of interest primarily to application developers. The standard de tails obligations for both the software developer and the content author, but in relatively spare , technical language.
Thus, the PDF / UA committees are writing an I mplementation G uide for end

users who are producing accessible PDF documents and forms. Th e G uide will make PDF / UA easier to understand and help software developers in creating conforming applications. The current schedules should get PDF / UA to a draft international standard in late 2010, or early 2011, with formal publication approximately a year thereafter. Several national standards bodies have expressed interest in PDF / UA , including the British S tandards I nstitution and German DIN. Organizations such as the American Foundation for the Blind and the DAISY consortium are also following the co mmittee’s efforts. I'm here to urge the board to adopt PDF / UA as the standard for accessible PDF. The establishment of a normative basis will for accessible PDF will improve accessibility of information technology and electronic content , improving access to information for all. Thank you for this opportunity to update you on progress towards an international standard for accessible PDF.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you very much. Maureen Fitzgerald of the Disability Policy Collaboration. Maureen Fitzgerald.
MAUREEN FITZGERALD: Good morning. My name is Maureen Fitzgerald, and I work for the Disability Policy Collaboration, which is a partnership between the A RC of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy, both the A RC and United Cerebral Palsy, have been representing people with disabilities for over 60 years. Each has affiliates and chapters in cities and states across the nation. Just a few comments this morning

. F irst of all, you asked about “ official communicati on from the Federal Government ” , and we believe that any kind of communication from the Federal Government should be18

accessible . W hether it is over YouTube, or anything else , that it should all be accessible to all individuals with disabilities. Given t he universe of individuals with disabilities and the unique differences that they all have, we believe that the functional accessibility criteria should be applied as well as the technical criteria. The guidelines seem to imply that if a piece of equipmen t or technology meets the technical standards, it will automatically meet the functional criteria. W e believe that given the disparities, the differences among people with disabilities, and the rapidly emerging field of technology, that there could be ins tances in which something met the technical standards and yet was still not accessible to an individual, so we believe that both standards the technical and the functional should be met.

Wealso think that there's a glaring omission in the standards when it comes to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities , and we notice that the TEITAC could not come to consensus about developing a standard. Wethink that some of the technical requirements do meet the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities , but we think that there should be some mention of the needs of these folks in these standards , a t least through some giving some examples, referencing some of the technical standards, but we believe that that group of individua ls is missing, and needs to be included in the standards.

Wewill also be submitting more comments in writing, and I very much appreciate this opportunity.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Claude Stout, Telecommunicat i ons for the Deaf, Inc. Claude Stout, Tel ecommunicat i ons for the Deaf, Inc.
CLAUDE STOUT: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Claude Stout. And I'm the director of Telecommunicat i ons for the Deaf a nd H ard of H earing, a national advocacy organization that provide s leadership and achievement access to people with disabilities regarding technology. TDI congratulates19

the B oard for your work and leadership, and facilitating the process of clear distinctions between terms, standards, and applications, and guidelines for equal access needs. Section 50 8 , and Section 255 are intentionally broad to give the Access Board maximum flexibility to implement effective workable guidelines for technology that Congress expected to change rapidly, which is happening

-- which is exa ctly what happened during the decade since these guidelines were originally implemented. Moreover, given that state agencies and private industry often model equal access programs after successful programs implemented at the federal level, the Access Board's decision to revisit the I C T technology guidelines also enables the Federal Government to lead by example on this important issue.
Over the past decade there have been tremendous changes in the way individuals use I C T technology to communicate, and ac cess information. Wi red, circuit

based telephone infrastructure has given way to flexible internet protocol

- based networks and applications that seamlessly support voice, video, and data services. IEP applications that were novel in 2000, for example , streaming video, are essential tools for conducting routine business in 2010. Unlicensed wireless functionality is embedded in virtually every laptop computer sold in 2010. Convergence has made previously distinct stand

- alone applications and technologie s function on nonnative platforms. For example, the ability to operate word processing software and many other applications on a smart phone which we take for granted in 2010 would have been farfetched in 2000. Generally the above changes have been a b oo n for productivity and the Federal Government worker. Unfortunately, the implementation of secondary technology to
ensure that Federal Government workers with disabilities have equal access to electronic content has not always kept pace. For example , alt hough in many instances streaming video is a preferred method for disseminating official government communications, not all agencies caption their IP video content. Also, not all government web pages allow visually impaired end users browsing the page ’ s c ontent to adjust the font size. Not all government web pages are optimized for screen reader software that is used widely by the blind, and visually impaired , to recite HTML text.20

Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak to you today o n these im portant issues.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mark R ichert . American Foundation for the Blind. Mark R ichert

. Looks like we have Paul S chroeder for the American F oundation for the B lind.

P AUL SCHROEDER: Thank you for the opportunity

. M y name is Paul S chroeder. I'm with the American foundation f or the B lind. Mark was just mumbling back there about grow ing a beard in about 5 minutes, so

-- (Laughter.)

PAUL SCHROEDER: He was struck by the individual talking about the number of pages that they are going to have to go through

. I f they should be so lucky

--- at the health care folks complained about , what , 2,000 pages they had to go through so , 56 doesn't seem like such a bad thing . (Laughter.) I want to make comments on behalf of the American F ou ndation for the B lind , an organization that works on behalf of individuals with vision loss

. W e have spent a great deal of time working on technology accessibility, and we intend to submit more detailed comments about specific provisions in the docket by the comment period. As you will know, we did publish a brief explanation, an indication to our community in a publication called Access W orld , which is available on the AFB website and I would certainly invite people to have a look at that and we will be providing further guidance to the vision loss and other communities through a tele

- seminar coming up later this month. I also want to indicate that I am a founding member, and one of the leaders of the Coalition of Organizations For Accessible Technology, COAT, and I would at least like to hope that the comments that I make today somewhat reflect the views of this broader coalition. I do want to applaud the Access Board for its work in balancing functional performance requirements and extensive specific t echnical guidelines generally

. I think we do believe that this document has dramatically improved upon the earlier guidelines for electronic and information technology accessibility as well as for the telecommunications guidelines.21

The remainder of my comments , while somewhat beyond the scope of the Access Board, I do believe are important as you reflect upon finalizing these guidelines , because they do indicate how we can make 508, I hope, more successful than it has proven to be thus far in transformin g accessibility of technology. First I want to comment on the need for transparency and consistency across federal agencies . I t is of critical importance that we see that that occur with Section 508 , and we don't believe that that has been the case. We think that the specifications of these guidelines will help to make that more possible. Wealso applaud the Access Board for its extensive supplemental documentation, which we hope will assist procurement officials also in maintaining consistency across t he Federal Government. Section 508 guidelines must facilitate sharing information about accessible technology and web accessibility solutions across federal agencies and the contractors that are covered for work on federal agency guidelines. I also want to applaud the fact that the Access Board has made clear that posting videos on channels such as YouTube does not excuse a federal agency from its requirements of accessibility under Section 508. Your guidelines are also important, we hope , as a way of as sisting in so

- called crowd sourcing, encouraging feedback from the covered communities, and that is the disability community of course, both federal employees, and members of the general public. We want to create opportunities for the public , as well as a nonymous employee feedback when necessary , in order to help federal agencies in implementing Section 508

. O bviously, there are complaint systems available too , for federal employees , but we also think that feedback can be an important tool in obviating the need for a complaint. Likewise the disability community, and again, federal employees, and members of the general public must be able to provide input into surveys and other ways of measuring federal compliance

. Assuming that the DOJ is p aying attention to this discussion today, yes , we are once again encourag ing them to move forward with all deliberate speed in completing their work required under Section 508, and in fact to report federal agency compliance, publish what has been done and get a new survey in the field as soon as possible so we know what benchmark we are working against. Finally , compliance with Section 508 , we believe , would be facilitated by mechanisms that enable feedback from the disability community. W e don't believe that federal agencies are as well served as22

they could be by the closed vendor controlled “V oluntary P roduct Accessibility T emplate ” which seems to be a substitute for full information on accessibility . W hile vendor information is of course critical, and the first way of getting information about the accessibility of a product, opportunities for independent evaluations from organizations such as mine, or individuals in the disability community, are also a valuable tool and must be more forthrightly includ ed in Section 508

. I believe that this further validates the importance that was spoken to earlier of the functional performance guidelines

. After all , the stuff has to actually work for real people, and real situations. Last comment, we will be spendin g some time on the “B est M eets ” , E 108 S ection , because
we are concerned that that will allow potentially for too much moving away from the Section 508 requirements. Thank you very much.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Eric Bridges. American Council of t he Blind. Mr. Eric Bridges. [No response.] All right, what we are going to do is go back up the list

. I understand a person who was signed up to speak earlier is now here, so I call him to the table. Mr. Eduardo Meza

- Etienne, TecAccess, Mr. Eduardo Me za - Etienne, TecAccess.

EDUARDO MEZA

- ETIENNE: Thank you. Good morning. I apologize; I was supposed to be one of the first testifying here. As Mr. Creagan mentioned , I represent TecAccess . W e are a leader in the disability consulting industry. W e have actually set up an internal task force to review t he Advance N otice of P roposed R ulemaking . O ne of the things that we have done so far is that we created a draft document I would like to send out to the US Access Board for review with comments and su ggestions. But one of the things that I would like to highlight is , we definitely support the idea of harmonizing the web standards to the web content accessibility guidelines, L evel D ouble A. Wedefinitely support that. As far as the 33 questions we are going over those questions. Wewill be again submitting some information that will be hopefully helpful to the Access Board in coming up with a final rule. So that is really all I have to add. Okay.23

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Let me call again, person s who were signed in who haven't testified. M s. Pre e ty Kumar , Deque Systems. Pre e ty Kumar, Deque Systems. [No response.] All right. Mr. Eric Bridges, American C ouncil of the B lind? [No response.] No? All right. The n ext person on the list is Mary Bro oner , on behalf of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA).
Mary Brooner: Good morning. I am Mary Brooner, and I am speaking today on behalf of the Telecommunications Industry Association. The members of which are manufacturers of ICT equip ment and manufacturers of ICT software. TIA was a member of the TEITAC , and has been involved in the Telecommunications Act activities of the Access Board, going back to the guidelines for the development of Section 255 and the functional standards for 50 8 originally. Many members of TIA develop VPATS to help the government meet Section 508 and many members make products subject to Section 255. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I first want to acknowledge, before I make any substantive comments , that the industry recognizes the significant work that has gone into the Advance N otice. It is truly a huge effort that you all have undertaken. It is a challenge to synthesize the information, and seek to make sense of technical details in a wa y that is comprehensive, future directed, and useful to the industry and to the 508 coordinators and procurement professionals throughout the Federal Government, and the many state and local governments that make

-- departments and agencies that make use of them. So thank you.
The first comment I wish to make, is a general one, and as background let me say that TIA will be filing comments, and detailed comments on some of the functional standards, and guidelines chapters. Some TIA members will also be fi ling comments on their own. So I wanted to put these comments in context. The context is this: Quite simply, TIA members want the Access Board recommendations and functional requirements to be doable, and achievable for commercially available products a nd services. The manufacturers want to build devices and equipment that are accessible to users, and allow the manufacturer to write supports next to the various standards that are detailed on the VPATs. W e want to share thoroughly information, and we do n't24

want to be in the situation of fearing that we are issuing misleading comments because in the end, both customers and users will not be satisfied. That statement that this is what we want to do is deceptively simple, because to achieve the goal requires the Access Board to write functional requirements in such a way that they are clear, and understood; that they are not limiting to just one way of implementation, and that they allow for innovation. To stand the test of time, the functional requirement s must be descriptive without being proscriptive, for example, to a single standard that might be revised in a period of years. I will give you an example. W ireless devices have audio voice, audio music and aud io ring tones . E ach one of those audio appl ications on a wireless device is built to a different standard , e ach one for the specific use. The standard for audio voice enhances the human voice range. Ring tones are intended to grab your attention, and must meet the consumer safety requirements for audio. If the Access Board functional requirements are generalized , overly so , for audio , in the details that are applied across all of audio, the manufacturers in some instances, will have to write, “ does not support ” on the VPAT where different standa rds are used than those that are stated , as if they were required. Yet, the device might be accessible. And we feel that that is a loss both for the manufacturer, and for the 508 coordinators and ultimately for the process to serve the accessibility and those who need it. And so similarly, for Section 255 purposes, designation of a single standard to meet a particular disability , may unnecessarily suggest a compliance issue where none may exist. So I thank you for the Advance N otice. It allows an opportunity for what I call a true

- up process, and it is extremely helpful for the opportunity to have this interim stage so that the goals of the further Notice and of the recommendations can be achieved. The second comment I would like to make is that the Access Board in some instances has conflated the Section 255 and 508 guidelines at this time , leaving it up to industry to ascertain which provisions are, or are not applicable to Section 255 in a given context. TIA suggests that it would be helpful if th e board provided some indication as to which of the requirements would apply to Section 255, or 508 under today's regulatory

-- under today's regulations, but would not apply to both. W e can make our own assessment, but it would also be useful to have the Access Board's.25

Thirdly, the Access Board has asked some questions, some 3 3 questions on its own with regard to how it has drafted the guidelines and the functional requirements. And if you will permit me I have just a few comments on just a few of them

. Wi th regard to question 1, it is fine that the organization of the document is by features rather than discrete product types. W here it gets complicated, and this goes back to my first comment, is that the functional requirements are not so specific to standards and ways of implementation that some product types are covered, but others are not simply because of the technology that is specifically referenced. A recommendation to the Access Board, which TIA will offer , is the importance of suggestive or illustrative language that points to the goal to be achieved and the primary purpose rather than proscriptive drafting. Question 2, which is on implementation time frames, yes, they should not all be the same, or yes you should allow a different time f rame. This is because in some instances, to be commercially available , industry standards do not exist and will have to be developed, and only then can new features begin to be the incorporated into devices, and that takes time. Also overhanging these proposals, is the N ational B roadband P lan issued by the FCC, the rulemakings that are coming out of that plan beginning very quickly, which have the potential to modify further the Access Board recommendations and also the legislativ e proposals that are under discussion in the Congress right now. So a request that industry makes is that the Access Board work with those bodies to ensure alignment with the FCC, and other agencies where issues overlap. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, and we look forward to continuing to work with you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Rex Lint, TechAmerica

. REX LINT: Good morning. I would like to thank the Access Board for a chance to make some remarks on aspects of the ANPRM that I found particularly important to the continued evolution of the technology industry. First, let me introduce myself . M y name is Rex Lint . I'm here representing TechAmerica . I also chair TechAmerica 's 508 working group. TechAmerica has as its mission the promoting of the interest s of the26

information technology industry. It is the leading voice for the US technology industry , t he driving force behind productivity growth and jobs creation in the United States, and the foundation of the global innovation ec onomy.

TechAmerica represents 1200 member companies of all sizes, from the public and commercial sectors of the economy. It's the industry's largest advocacy organization and it is dedicated to helping member ’ s top and bottom lines. TechAmerica is also the technology industry's grassroots to global advocacy network with offices in state capitols around the United States, W ashington, D.C., with European offices in Bru ssels , and Asian offices in Beijing. TechAmerica was formed by the merger of the Americ an E lectronics Association, (Ae A ), The C yber Security Industry Alliance, ( CSIA ) , the I nformation T echnology Association of America , ( ITAA ) , and the G overnment E lectronics and I nformation T echnology Association , ( GEIA )

. I served two years , together with many of today's audience, as a member of the TEITAC

-- a member of TEITAC

. Wec ollaborate d to arrive at the recommendations that underlie the emerging standard that we are discussing today.
So what is it that I find important in the text of the standard as proposed by the Access Board? Let me answer this directly, then I will explain why it's important, and what the pressures have been to arrive at this point.
I enthusiastically endorse the Access Board's interpretation of the purpose o f the functional performance criteria. The functional performance criteria, are the provisions in the standards that layout in broad terms the purpose for the technical provisions. An example is, 202.2, W ithout V ision. “At least one mode of operation us ing nonvisual access shall be provided. ”
The debate that engaged TEITAC members, stem m ed from on the one hand , the desire to have this new 508, 255 standard serve as assurance that the product will make access assured if a vendor claims conformity with t he standard , a nd on the other27

hand, a long and arduous testing process that vendors have to undertake to assure that in addition to meeting the technical provisions, the product was indeed accessible to people without vision.

The Access Board has address ed this debate. They say, and I quote "E 103.5.1, R elation of F unctional P erformance C riteria to the T echnical P rovisions. If there are applicable provisions in C hapters 3 through 9 that fully address the product or service being procured, then the agency need not look at C hapter 2, the F unctional P ermanence C riteria . Acquired products that meet the specified technical provisions set forth in C hapters 3 through 9 will also meet the broader functional performance criteria in C hapter 2

. "
Pretty clearly the Access Board is saying that the technical provisions are the vehicle by which the functional performance criteria are met , u nless a product or service does not meet the technical provision. This is important to IT companies because they are not required to prove that the functional performance criteria are met if the technical provisions are met.
Second, IT companies argue that the functional performance criteria should be used if some new technology, for example, does not meet the technical requirem ents. A method of addressing accessibility appropriate to such a new technology must meet the functional performance criteria for users where the technical requirements are lacking.

The notion of “ equivalent facilitation ” in the current 508 has been pre served , a nd it can be used if a technical requirement is not met. But accessibility can be provided, that is, the functional performance requirement or requirements can be met with new technical methodology.
The Access Board was listening . T hey said , an d I quote, "E 103.5.2, ICT N ot Addressed by T echnical P rovisions. If an agency's procurement needs are not fully28

addressed by C hapters 3 through 9 then the agency must look to C hapter 2 for applicable functional performance criteria. ” “ 103.5.3. Evaluatio n of F ailures Against T echnical P rovision . I f any of the technical provision in Ch apters 3 through 9 are not met , the functional performance criteria in C hapter 2 must be used to evaluate if access is provided in another way, through E 106 E quivalent F aci litation."
These provisions are important to protect the most important elements of the IT and technology industries intellectual arsenal, that is , innovation. A fact of the rapid development of technology, whoever invented the last big thing is not the inventor of the next big thing. That means when we insist that accessibility be included in the next product at its outset, the inventors of that next product are not the people listening to us.

Weas promoters of accessible products will many times have to follow the direction of technology development , then repairing and revising products to include provisions for accessibility. But we need to be careful not to say , “S top, don't make any
new non - accessible products. ” To do so would be to shackle the powerhouse of technology that keeps our country the leader in innovation. So we applaud the Access Board's relationship between technical provisions and the functional performance criteria . W e look forward to providing comments on the remainder of the issues we identify as we review the ANPRM, and our membership is in the process of collaborating on comments that we will submit next month

. TechAmerica would like to thank the Access Board for the opportunity to participa te in this hearing and I would like to say thank you for your kind attention.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. T ony O livero , N ational F ederation of t he Blind. Tony Olivero.

T ONY OLIVERO: Good morning, my name is Tony OLIVERO and I'm an access technology spe cialist with the N ational F ederation of the B lind . M embers of the B oard , I would like to thank you for the opportunity to bring you the thoughts, excuse me of the N ational F ederation of the B lind , t he nation's oldest and largest consumer29

organization of b lind people , regarding the R efresh of Section 508 , Section 255, and the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. Overall, we are pleased with the direction the B oard has taken in updating these regulations. In particular, the harmonization with the worldwide web, web content, will enable content developers, access technology specialists, and users to work from a single set of standards when developing applications and content. This will lead to a more positive experience for all involved in the acces sibility process, by ensuring there's no room for doubt which standards should be developed for and tested against. In reviewing the draft

-- excuse me. In reviewing the draft guidelines, we do have a few recommendations we would like to submit for the B oard's consideration. W e will be submitting written comments as well as what I'm summarizing here. The term,

“ assistive technology” found throughout the document, denotes a custodial attitude where it is implied that the technology is doing work for the user. Our recommendation is to utilize the term “ access technology” , which more readily represents the functionality of the technolo gy. That being to allow the user to gain access to material that otherwise would be unavailable. An audio interface, for example, merely replaces a visual screen as a method whereby I can access a computer. It is not specifically doing something to make my job of accessing that any easier.

Wewould like to see provisions added to the guidelines addressing help desk and technical support, wherein in addition to the requirements already identified, require some ability to communicate with users

-- excuse me, to communicate with users with disabilities, utilizing access technology in terms with which they are familiar. Language similar to that used in 503.4 S ensory C haracteristics, wherein the requirement is set forth to not require the understanding of vi sual elements such as shape, or screen placement be included when addressing communication with the user and support

-- for support purposes.
This is applicable to both technical support, and technical documentation. W e are pleased that manufacturers will be encouraged to include users with disabilities in focus group testing of new products. W e would encourage the board to also extend this30

inclusion to all phases of the product life cycle. Occasionally products are released that meet accessibility gu idelines, but when an update is made, accessibility functionality is lost and users are no longer able to access those products.
Ensuring that users with disabilities are included in testing during product updates will help to eliminate this risk. Infor mation is included in S ection 504

-- excuse me, 604.5 discussing m ultiple visual focus on on

- screen displays. W e would like to see this paragraph and guidance expanded to ensure that audio output is available for items such as screen crawls, title cards, screen pop - up information, and on

- screen displays such as electronic programming guides. This information can be disseminated either through an audio subchannel, or by transmitting textual data to the end user that can be decoded in a text form. W e do ha ve a significant concern in the ADA paragraphs discussing stand

- alone kiosks. Our interpretation of the exemption for closed systems to meet the functionality requirements in S ection 3 02, we interpret this to mean that closed systems would not have to pro vide audio output since under the regulations in 302, the closed system should provide its own output and only require the user to add a personal head set for secured listening.
If the equipment is not required to provide its own audio output, then we in terpret this to mean that stand

- alone kiosks do not necessarily have to be accessible. We encourage the B oard to require all kiosk systems used for ticketing, check

- in, check

- out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food to be required to be acce ssible regardless of whether they are considered a closed system. Additionally, we would encourage the board to extend the definition of a kiosk to include informational display systems such as airline and train arrival and departure screens. Thank you for your time, and the opportunity to speak to you regarding the thoughts of the N ational F ederation of the B lind, and we hope that you will utilize these in your deliberations, thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. I would like to call Judy Brewer. Judy Brewer , W3 C

.31

JUDY BREW ER: Thank you for this opportunity to testify with regard to the United States Access Board's planned update of Section 508, Section 255, and the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines. My name is Judy Brewer, and I direct the W eb Accessibility I nitiative at the W orldwide W eb C onsortium . As my colleague offered in the March hearing, we will make more detailed comments before the end of the comment period. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the Access Board for its very hard work and care in preparing this ANPRM. I particularly appreciate the emphasis in the ANPRM on harmonization with international standards and web accessibility. Before I started working in the field of web accessibility, the topic of standard s harmonization sounded both abstract, and esoteric to me. I suspect that this is the way that it may still sound to many people. But I believe it is one of the best strategies that we all have for accelerating the pace of implementing accessibility solut ions across the web and the implementation does need acceleration. Standardization is much more than a way to keep recreating the wheel. It is a way to ensure that all parties interested in web accessibility are able to work towards a common target with regard to accessibility goals. It is a way to ensure that technical support materials and training resources can be widely reusable, and expanded on, rather than redevelop ed separately for each different standard , and that organizations can realize the benefits of WCAG2 .0, which is a highly flexible framework for supporting innovation.
Standards harmonization is also a way to ensure that the US does not fragment accessibility standards for the web, restarting a process of cascading derivative versions of web accessibility standards that have a negative impact on accessibility efforts in other countries around the world. I'm frequently asked by my colleagues in other countries what I think the US will do with regard to harmonization with W C3

-WA I

. And I can now say that the intent to harmonize comes strongly in the ANPRM. And I encourage it to be stronger if possible. One of the questions that W3C is looking at is does this method of harmonization proposed in the ANPRM make it sufficiently clear for
we b developers that they can and should use web content accessibility guidelines,32

WCAG 2 .0 AA, or even ways to make it even clearer. The clearer the statement of harmonization , the more we believe that this will protect against fragmented interpretations o f the standards in the US Federal Government, in U.S. states, and in other countries.

O n the topic of harmonization, I would also like to note that at the time of completion of the TEITAC report, WCAG2 .0 was not quite a completed W3 C standard

. W e commen d the Access Board for keeping up with developments in the completion of the WCAG2.0 consensus standard as part of the regulatory process . T he Access Board has continued to ensure t hat this ANPRM reflects the completed WCAG2.0 standard . This standard was supported by a broad and multi

- stakeholder consensus of industry, disability, government, and research.
To look at the benefits of standards harmonization from another angle, it is important because it enables all parties to leverage what I call “ multip l iers , ” the most of important of which are authoring tools. Authoring tools are software applications that people use to create and produce all kinds of content on websites. In the context of web accessibility, authoring tools can multiply the effort expe nded on accessibility by building support for production of accessible content into the tools themselves, taking this beyond a one developer , one website, one guideline approach, to an approach where improvements in support for production of accessible con tent in authoring tools, can be built into all mainstream authoring tools, helping raise the accessibility levels of hundreds of thousands of websites through individual authoring tools.
Though we are encouraged by recent changes in some authoring tools, progress in authoring tools has lagged too far behind the field and people with disabilities have lost out as a result. Standards harmonization will help drive these improvements. But we also commend the Access Board for incorporating into this ANPRM sp ecific provisions regarding support for production of accessible content by authoring tools

. F or instance, provisions regarding inclusion of accessible templates for production of accessible websites ; s ince templates are one of the most widely used shortc uts to si te33

creation you might add that help people to build accessible sites . W e want to bring to the Access Board ’s attention that there are further wording improvements in accessibility guidelines and updates to the W3C Accessibility G uidelines 2.0 dra fts , which are in progress at W 3C, and we will provide more detailed written comments on this point in case those can be useful to the Access Board.
Standards harmonization also helps with regard to improved evaluation methodologies by providing a common definition of what needs to be evaluated. We are seeing great interest in this area of evaluation methodologies, in some countries, and expect to see growing interest in the US as well.

Weencourage harmonization for this reason , as well as for the ben efits that will be realized on the conformance side , and we encourage the development and availab ility of a variety of conformance approaches to evaluate to a common standard.

Wealso appreciate attention to user interface issues in particular . W e l ook forward to sharing additional progress o n the U ser Agent Accessibility G uidelines 2.0 , a draft which has also progressed at W 3C during this time, particular ly in areas such as support for keyboard accessibility . W e look forward to improvements in some of these
areas. Again, I would like to sincerely thank the US Access Board for this opportunity to make preliminary comments on the ANPRM and we will provide more detailed comments in writing, thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you.
NEIL MELICK: Okay, at this time, we are going to take a 10 minute break. We have about 3 more speakers that have signed up . I f you still want to speak , you can go to the registration desk and sign up

. Wewill start back in 10 minutes.34

[There was a B rief Break in the proceedings. The Chair called the hearing back into session. ]

NEIL MELICK: Start in about 2 minutes.
NEIL MELICK: If everyone would take your seats, we will start in about 1 minute. Before we get started, we have some pictures that they need to take for the B oard, so if you will bear with us for a couple of minutes, as we take care of that we will get right started.
Okay, he is taking pictures. Hold on just a minute, over here we are getting pictures over to the right, if you will just look that way.
[Photographer takes pictures]
Okay, we will get right back to the public hearing portion. Tim, will you give us the next testifier.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman

. T he B oard would like to call M s. Dana Mulvany.

DAN A MULVANY: Hello. My name is Dana Mulvany, and I am speaking here today as a consumer advocate who is hard of hearing. I also work at the consultant specializing in hearing loss issues. My comments today are focused primarily on the needs of people who are hard of hearing of which there are more than 30 million in the U.S.A.
My name is Dana Mulvany, and I'm speaking here today as a consumer advocate who is hard of hearing; I also work as a consultant specializing in hearing loss issues. My comments tod ay are focused primarily on the needs of people who are hard of hearing, of which there are more than 30 million in the U.S.A.35

Wh at I'll be doing here this morning is providing some information about the needs of people with hearing loss along with numbe red technical points that I would like the Access Board to take into consideration. A. Most hard of hearing people have much stronger hearing in the low frequencies compared to their ability to hear high frequencies. Many hard of hearing people cannot hear high frequency sounds at all. 1. This means that alerting sounds for the general public should be required to contain multiple frequencies, especially low frequency sounds, and should not use just high frequency sounds. 2. There needs to be a required opt ion to customize alerting sounds for the need of the individual user with respect to the frequencies used by the alerting sound, not just the loudness level. B. In order to decipher speech at their highest level possible, many hard of hearing people need high fidelity reproduction of speech across all speech frequencies with as little noise as possible.
3. This means that all audio components need to be capable of high fidelity reception, transmission and generation of speech for maximum speech comprehension. These include microphones and telephone hardware used by people who do not have a disability themselves but who would c ommunicate with hard of hearing employees and/or members of the public. 4. Telephone and VoIP services also need to transmit high fidelity audio to the maximum extent possible. I thus endorse the Access Board's effort to address Audio Clarity for Interconn ected VoIP. 5. It would indeed be very helpful if the Board would require that any auditory features, where provided, include at least one mode of operation that improves clarity, reduces background noise, or allows control of volume, in addition to adding the other features I mention today. (This is my answer to Question 13.)36

C. Because of uneven hearing loss in both ears, including single

- sided deafness, many hard of hearing people need all the audio delivered either to one ear or both ears. In other word s, 6. Manufacturers need to provide an option to switch stereo sound to mono. (Apple has already been doing this for certain models of the iPod Touch and the iPhone 3GS.) 7. It is often important to be able to use both ears to hear, not just one ear, becau se each ear may hear very differently. W henever possible, the ability to hear with both ears should be provided. D. Speech comprehension for hard of hearing people can increase enormously by being able to speech read and hear at the same time. For many peo ple with severe hearing loss, speech reading provides information about consonants that they might not otherwise hear. 8. Video communication technology therefore needs to support the simultaneous transmission of speech reading and audio at the same time for hard of hearing people. The technology should also support the provision of text from relay services directly on the video. E. The majority of people with hearing loss do not use hearing aids. 9. It would be highly desirable for communication equipment to provide customization of the frequencies in the audio signal. Apple has done this for music by providing an equalizer function on some of their iPhones and iPods. It would thus appear to be technically feasible for manufacturers to provide the same function for all audio emanating from their products. F. Captioning is very important to people with significant hearing loss. Unfortunately, many people have significant trouble figuring out how to turn it on and may not even realize it is available.
10. Cont rols for turning on and customizing captioning need to be as easy to use as possible.37

Thank you for your attention to these important issues.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Ken Salaets, ITI.
KEN SALAETS: I had to see if it was still morning, good morning. My name is Ken Salaets, director of global policy for the Information Technology Industry C ouncil, or ITI. I'm pleased to be here, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments just to kind of give you an update on where we are in this process, and I sympathize with the staff because the ITI effort is comprehensive as is the NPRM comprehensive, and we greatly appreciate the amount of time and effort that went into this. W e also apprec iate the Access Board staff which is accessible, responsive, thoughtful, and open minded. I deal with a number of government agencies and believe me, this is very refreshing. So I appreciate that, and kudos to David Capozzi and the team.

ITI has been e ngaged i n accessibility since , well , we were on the first Advisory Committee represented there, and also on the TEITAC committee. W e have been actively engaged with the Federal Government. Weare the developers of the VPAT or voluntary product accessibili ty template. I will give you a quick update on that. Weare moving to add XML capability to that which will facilitate federal agency market research on accessib le ICT that conforms to Section 508. Weare developing a distinct website with the assistanc e of an intern who comes on board June 1st to work with us in that regard, and we are also committ ing again to the Access Board that when the 508 standard is revised , that we will update the VPAT to conform to the new standard.

Wewill probably call it V PAT 2.0 at that time, which is what our industry does. Accessibility is critical. G lobally, it is a market opportunity. It is essential to enable individuals to use the tools and toys that we create. Accessibility is enabler technology that as many peo ple have experienced , enables not only the ability to compete effectively in the marketplace, but also to take advantage of everything that is rolling out through innovation. We are continually committed to working with the Access Board38

and also with the Federal Government, state governments and international governments to try to promote that. Harmonization is key for us because as I like to say , whether you are blind in Brisba n e , Brussels, or the Bronx, the technology is probably very similar. W e as an industry can focus on developing tools that we can sell globally . T hat really reduces the costs, and the investment on the side of administrative aspects and legal aspects as o pposed to just innovating and improving the technology. Again, I would like to complement the B oard for the outreach that you have done internationally

-- actively engaged in Europe and elsewhere , as is ITI . T his has been extremely helpful , and we are now seeing Europe, for example offering the same opportunities back to the US , and that is very important for us.
Our companies are drawn from US, Japan, Europe, China, and Canada . W e are active in South America on regulatory issues and looking in Africa a s a possible market and of course, we are directly engaged in Europe and Asia. To the extent that harmonization is key , we wanted to ad d ress one issue, one thing that you will see in our comments when we do file them

-- and hopefully in time for the deadl ine

-- that we believe harmonization with W CAG 2.0 is essential. It is an effort that a number of our companies individually and collectively have invested considerable time and effort in, and we think that it is critical to have a common infrastructure; a common metric that we can pursue globally that will facilitate our ability to , again , market and deliver our products globally.
Just to drill down and give you kind of an update of where we are. I have received 7 comprehensive comments from member comp anies on the ANPRM, so I sympathize with Tim , because I'm going to be going through a similar process in about the next 48 hours to put that together. Yesterday our accessibility committee met for 8 hours. That was just the beginning. I would like to ch aracterize it as the tip of the iceberg , because I know that our companies have spent the last 30 days essentially going through all of their product groups, their legal groups, every aspect of their company that deals with accessibility and delivering acc essibility tools to come together, put together these documents on the table. Some of th ese e - mail s are so large that we39

are going to actually break them up into 10 pieces so that we can have smaller bites , so to speak.
Thus far, just again, to give you a heads up we have identified at least 50 provisions that we consider “ high impact ” that will have significant , in some cases challenges , but , nevertheless some of the challenges may be to reach consensus because we are a highly competitive industry. But we are probably going to spend the majority of our time focusing on those 50. Wehave identified another 40 plus provisions that we have term ed “ medium impact, ” medium to high . S ome of these will go up and down depending on the consensus from the companies.
And lastly, we may even have to take what we consider “ low impact , ” meaning that the provisions might not require as many changes in our processes , and actually set those aside. This is an incredible effort that you are undertaking. It is significant; it is going to have a significant impact on our industry, and our ability to continue to successfully deliver 508 conforming products to t he marketplace. But nevertheless, 508 is the leading standard for ICT globally and we commend you for that and are committed to helping retain that level of leadership in the marketplace. Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Alex Li. Microsoft. M r. Alex Li.
ALEX LI: Good morning, Access Board, and the members of the public, my name is Alex Li, and I'm a PC, and a geek.
(Laughter.)
ALEX LI: I love the IT industry. You know that fresh out of school that is what I wanted to do, and I can tel l you why I love the IT industry so much. It is that it is moving so fast, and so unpredictably. You never know what today will bring. There are new technolog ies , new gadgets, new methods , and new inventions coming up every day

. Ask the patent office

-- you will find many, many innovative IT things coming to the40

ma r ke t today. And each and every one of them will have a chance to change the market, and I love that, that is fundamental to me. And some of the things that we have in the Microsoft labs being bounced around , you can only describe that as science fiction

-- s ome of the things that if they come to the market can really truly change the li ves of many people and change the technologies. But yet, so many of them do not come to fruition. For every thousand ideas, maybe one or two will reach a prototype. For every hundred prototypes, maybe 2 or 3 will reach the market. For every thousand products out there, one or two will be a market success. For those that are successful, they can change the ga me of industries. It can change the li ve of many people. But it is a very statistically low probability that each one of them would make a particular impact until many years down the road through the labs, and through the marketplace.

So that is someth ing that is fundamental in our industry. I find this just absolutely fascinating. I like to share that with you. As a fellow geek and I am

-- I understand not too many of the people are geeks, so just pardon my enthusiasm.
But why is that important to the B oard? The fundamental thing is that the IT industry moves fast. And it moves very unpredictably. So I use those two terms over and over and over again. So why is that relevant to what you are doing? W hen you put out the ANPRM out here, and event ually the final rules pertaining to a particular type of fast

- moving objects that is moving in a very unpredictable way , you are trying to apply a rule on something that changes every day, and it changes unpredictably. So it is a very difficult job, I don 't envy you on that . T o that end, I would like to comment that the Access Board has done a marvelous job in representing the reality today. So that is , you know, hats off to you guys. If you would imagine this conceptually in a horizon, on say the X axi s, one end is the past and on the other end is the future. Somewhere in the middle you have the present , today. So how would you develop the rule that really applies , while not to the past, because the past becomes obsolete i n the IT industry , a nd not to the future, because you cannot predict the future. I know you don't have a crystal ball hidden somewhere back there

-- a nd we don't in Microsoft , either.41

So if you try to guess too much ahead, the future will come back and tell you , that you have guessed wrong. So it is a very difficult task for the Access Board to kind of stand on their tip py toes to try to set up a set of rules that is relevant today, but yet, somehow you know down the road that we have to change the rule because the technology will change. That is an incredible challenge that you are facing for the rulemaking here.
Now, I have commented that the ANPRM did a marvelous job in representing the current reality. There are some cases where the provision actually more reflects that of the yesteryears. And Microsoft will make our comments very clear when provisions reflect the yesteryears and not today, we will bring you to today's standards. Wewill help you do that. And also, on the other hand, when the Access Board becomes too futuristic into its vision, we will also try to bring you guys back to what today's reality looks like.
So those are the two things that really I wanted to emphasize to the B oard. Microsoft has made a very, very comprehensive review of the ANPRM. Our co mments are extremely comprehensive, and we aim to be extremely constructive and move forward for people with accessibility needs and people with disabilities and the technology industries. It is

-- we will make those comments in R egulations.gov.
But, an d like I said, a vast majority of the comments actually will reflect in nudging, making minor nudges to your ANPRM, to make it better, but just a little bit of it will try to move you from yesteryears to today, and some of them will move you from the future back to today.
So those are the things, the two sides that I would like to emphasize that to the B oard to make that very clear that those are very important to reflect. Now, moving down the road, what will happen is that you will go through the NPRM p rocess, and the final rulemaking process. I'm sure it will be at least a year from now. During that year things will change. Technologies will change. Even a perfect reflection of ANPRM42

today will have to be reflected upon in the NPRM process and the f inal rulemaking process to make it contemporary and relevant. Now, what happens after you make a final rulemaking? We ll, how can this document stay alive and well and relevant in the future? W ell, we have two pieces of advice. One you have already taken , which is reference international standards. That is great. Wewould like that to happen, but we understand that you may reference international standards that are yet to be created. So we actually would like to urge the B oard to create some sort of fa st

- tracking process so that when international standards become updated, our competing standard becomes available and published, and the Access Board can actually find a way to reference it quickly.
And number 2, system barring that, perhaps one other wa y is to be descriptive as possible without being proscriptive. The solutions to the problems that you have today will not be the solutions that you want tomorrow. So we really want to scrub through all of the provisions to make sure that they are descrip tive in nature and not proscriptive in nature.
So I look forward to submitting the final comments to you via Microsoft and through our industry friends and associations. W e promise that it will be constructive, and the y will be helpful t o you, and we wi ll pledge to keep working with everybody to make sure that the comments are helpful to you guys.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. M s. Dana Marlowe. Accessibility P artners. M s. Dana Marlowe.

DANA MARLOW E: Good morning. I would first like to thank the Acces s Board for the opportunity to comment here. My name is Dana Marlowe, and I'm principal partner of Accessibility Partners, an accessibility consulting firm. First off, kudos to a job well done for a huge feat of synthesizing years of discussions, data, a nd communications into this ANPRM. My brief remarks also focus on the emphasis for global harmonization, as we have also heard this morning, and in San Diego. The43

d i sintegration of accessibility ICT legislation and regulatory standards is prevalent
acros s geographic regions countries and states. The risks associated with fragmented legislation and regulations could result in restricted innovation, increased costs, and delayed time to market. Fragmentation drives up costs, and potentially longer lead tim es for industry and consumers , t herefore, creating a need for global standards harmonization. The ICT refresh initiative and ANPRM to promote harmonization is a huge step in the right direction. W e appreciate the consideration of harmonizing requirements such as with web standards and E 107. The synchronization of standards is crucial for achieving more rapid progress in making the web more accessible for people with disabilities all over.

Wi th regard to the Advance N otice, the only suggestion we would like to offer, is that since we are working with a very moving target, which is the advancement of technology, the quicker we can have this process completed and comprehensive, while allowing for innovation, the faster people can benefit.
Again, I want to compliment everybody on their very hard work and thank you very much for your time, and consideration.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. Ne d Monroe, National Automatic Merchandising Association, NAMA, Mr. Ne d Monroe.
>>: NED Monroe: Good morning . T hanks for the opportunity to be here

. I appreciate all of the hard work of the group, and I will be submitting more formal comments a s we go forward . M y name is Ned Monroe, the senior vice president of government affairs for the National Automatic Mercha ndising Organization. W e represent the food and beverage vending industry, the operators, the suppliers, the machine manufacturers.
For your information, there are about 7 million vending machines, food and beverage vending machines that generally have the life span of about 10 years. W e44

don't represent kiosks, or gaming industry to the bulk vendors, but the food and beverage, and I'm here on a very narrow comment, specifically, at the request of some questions that we received based on the material tha t the group has put out. And so I'm here to seek clarification and present our point of view on the very narrow point. And that is that food and beverage vending machines should not be included in ITC rules for several reasons.
First, food and beverage vending machines do not communicate with , nor do federal agencies communicate with , vending machines using electronic content as defined in E103.3.1.
2. Electronics in food and beverage vending machines are not the principal function of ICT, nor are we electronic and information technology E&IT under 36 CFR part 1194.4. And I would refer the group to Advisory E 103.3.2, which says in part, “... electronics used in the operation of a vehicle, for example, are not ICT. An example of electronics that are no t covered is the dashboard of a car. ” Food and beverage vending machines have electronics , for example , to validate coin and currency. W e also have electronic devices that guarantee that temperature controls for milk products, dairy products, are maintai ned for the life cycle. Those are not part of ICT systems.
3. Our manufacturers don't manufacture telecommunication products under C102.1.
My fourth point is that food and beverage vending machines don't fall under 220.2. That section relates to spe cific areas including ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. These are food and beverage machine, snacks, soft drink machines but not necessarily in ordering food in restaurants. There's a distinction between food and beverage vending machines and kiosks.
And I would just like to remind everyone, we will be glad to submit further comments. Weare very involved and we do want to partnership. We fully support the45

ADA and the Access Board goals. For example, our machines fully comply with reach and height requirements. W e have tactile features on our machines; our manufacturers are constantly looking for solutions in from our customers. W e are retailers and looking for solutions. And as a food and beverage vending machine organization, we partner repeatedly and constantly with the Randolph

- Sheppard Act of vendors. And so we are very aware of the concerns of this group and we appreciate it. Wealso will be putting formal comments into the records related to specifics addressing question 30, as if we are included in this. We don't think we are, but if we are, it would have a significant impact to our industry, and to the businesses which are small mom and pop people that are handling the machines. Thank you very much.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Mr. E mmanuel Coutoulakis , Accessible Tech.

EMMANUEL COUTOULAKIS : I'm Emmanuel Coutoulakis with Accessible Tech . I am an accessibility consultant . T hank you for the opportunity to comment on this important work.

Wereally applaud all of the efforts of the last four years, actually, and we believe that we are at the cross roads of technology and development. T his is because innovative products can be accessible. My colleagues in the labs of the universities throughout the country, and throughout th e world, they come up with some brilliant adaptations to the provisions of accessibility, even for the most advanced technologies. So brilliant are the innovations as brilliant adaptations as well. There's a problem, however, that we are facing all the t ime, and with the opportunity of this draft, that is coming out, is about to become law, we will have some implementation questions. Most of the vendors who deal with the Federal Government do not understand accessibility. T his is because it is deceptive. It might look easy at the beginning, and we are , most of the time , faced with an issue at the end , that this product is not accessible. I n this case, everybody is losing, the agency doesn't have an accessible product, the vendor might lose or waste a lot of money to make it accessible, the engineers might be frustrated, and of course, accessibility suffers at the end. So, a way out for this is a46

communication, a clear communication on the requirements at the conception, in the RFP, how serious an agency is, and how clear the requirement for accessibility is. So, a lot of times vendors might use “ undue burden ” as a way out. In fact, it is used way too frequently. So what can be done about this? Communicate clearly to the agency having implem entation plans on how this draft, this law will be applied, how it will be implemented, and at the end, everybody will gain, and of course, innovative products will be accessible. So we are at the cross roads to create good innovative products, good techn ology that will be accessible to anybody. So two things I will appeal to the B oard to communicate: The clarity of the 508 requirement s ; and the seriousness to the vendor and the end users , from the conception, up to completion. Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Ms. Moira Sh ea

.
MOIRA SH EA : Thank you. My name is M OIRA SH EA and I'm here to represent myself today as a consumer of assistive technology. I want to thank the Access Board and all of you folks in the room for all of the hard work that you have done to ensure that electronic information technology is accessible. Due to that, I am able to maintain a job, and work, and also this afternoon, I will get my first accessible Blackberry, which will help me a lot in doing my job.
I'm here, I ca me not prepared for a statement, but listening, I just want to ensure that the people who are deaf blind like myself are also fully represented within the context of the new framework. I have a condition known as Ushers Syndrome , the leading cause of deaf blindness in this country. It manifests itself in three general ways. A child can be born profoundly deaf, and then , when in the teen or early 20s learn that they are losing their vision. Also, a child can be born hard of hearing and again, the hearing will remain the same throughout their life, but then they lose their vision. And the third scenario is that a child can be born , and throughout his or her life , continue to lose sight and hearing and become profoundly deaf and blind.47

So I just want to m ake sure that the technology is available for those changes. Myself personally, I used to be able to see a flat screen computer, and then I went into the Microsoft accessibility use high contrast and in the last year I really had to learn J aws, and learn more about web accessibility, and with my vision loss, also, I lost the ability to read lips. So technology for deaf

- blind is becoming more and more important to me, and I just hope that in the consideration of the 508 Refresh that that constituency is al so well represented. Thank you very much.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE Research Center. Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden.
GREGG VANDERHEIDEN: Hi, thank you very much. First, I want to say that the Access Board is to be commended fo r the tremendous amount of work translating the existing 508 guidelines , the 255 guidelines , and the TEITAC into the draft document that you have. It has done some very good wording in places and in some places, it is quite innovative in trying to make th ese very complex provisions easier to understand and use. I would like to mention four places; however, where I think there's a little bit more work needed. T hey are pretty important areas. First, functional performance criteria play a key role in both evaluating the overall products accessibility of people with disabilities and allowing the guidelines to work for future technologies, and we have been talking about them. In the current, the original 508 guidelines, the performance cr iteria were cited as a way to do the final test , once the technical provision had been met. In the new one, however it specifically states that if the technical provisions fully address a product, then the functional performance criteria don't even need t o be looked at, or examined. The key here, is, the phrase, “ the technical provisions fully address. ” T his sounds like a really good approach, except how do we determine if the technical provisions actually “ fully address ” a product? Now, in two years of searching, including talking with industry, I have not been able to find any way to determine how the technical provisions “ fully address ” accessibility . W e want to try the functional performance criteria, and see whether or not they uncover things that the technical provisions did not. In other words, we have a situation where48

you don't have to look at the functional performance criteria, if they “ fully meet ” , but there's really no way to determine that they “ fully meet ” unless you look at them. Now, in one case, we had where somebody was looking at it , and they said “W ell every part of my product , I found a technical provision that related to it. ” But in one case, a technical provision related for blindness to one part, and to another part of the pro duct, it was for a different disability. And so what you had was a product where one disability could use some parts , and other people could use other parts, but can anybody use the whole product? As for the technical provisions , there's no way of lookin g at them and determining that without looking at them more holistically.

So the FPC are needed, alongside of the technical provisions , since it is way too easy to meet all of the technical provisions and not have a product that is accessible. More impo rtantly, it is easy to do it and not know that you don't have one that is accessible unless you look at the performance.
Secondly, there' re two key technical provisions that are missing. One says that audio information needs to be available in a non

- audi o form, and this is clear for people who are deaf, and the other says that information presented visually needs to be available in a non

-visual form. Now, on computers this is covered because it always talks about the information being exposed to the AT

-- that would be on the computer. But there' re many other types of E&IT and we are seeing newer ones coming out every day. Some of the comments that you heard earlier about people saying ‘ I don't understand how the guidelines can be here and yet this is go ing to be inaccessible ,’ is because of these missing two provisions

. These are two access needs that are not covered elsewhere in the provisions. They were in the TEITAC report, though one was not finished in the report. There's a model for it in the exi sting 255 guidelines for how to do that. Wi thout them, it is possible to design specific types of products that meet all of the technical provisions but are not accessible. So they are really critical. They are clear , objective, and very critical components, and they are actually two of the most important provisions for accessible guidelines , especially for any products other than personal computers.49

The third area is closed products, and we are seeing more products appearing that have closed functionality. Yet key aspects of making closed functionality products accessible didn't make it into the A NPRM draft. First were the two mentioned that we mentioned just above. The second is an interesting one, in that some of the exceptions , where it says the closed products don't have to work with AT, were lost. So actually products that can't work with AT are required to work with AT. And so this just needs to be cleaned up.
But what also needs to be done, is that those AT compatibility provisions were there to allow accessibility, and if the closed products don't have to be compatible with AT, to provide that functionality, there has to be something in there to make sure that they in fact provide that themselves.

In o ther words, if you don't work with AT, then you can't rely on AT to provide the accessibility you need to make sure that you provide the accessibility.

The A NPRM language is not far off but there are some key pieces missing. And lastly, in a number of p laces the provisions talk about interoperability a nd in particular a couple of places deal with it around with telecommunications, telecommunications from one end to the other of a system. Now, the intent of all of the ANPRM interoperability provisions is to ensure that products made by one manufacturer will work with other manufacturer's products when that is necessary for a communication. For example, when you have a phone call, the n you can't just say “W ell , my phone works for me. ” It has got to work all the way to the other end.

T he Access Board , in general with your interoperability , in other places it is very careful to say , “You can do whatever you want in your own places, but where you interconnect, you have to use a standard and we will tell yo u what that is so that everybody knows, ” because a manufacturer cannot make a product that will work with everybody else's, if they don't know in advance what the other companies are going to50

be using, where they need to join. So they don't have to have a ll of the standards be the same. But where they connect to each other, that is key, and you did that every place , but there's a couple of places you didn't. T hose places need to be specified or else you can just say well, you need to be compatible, but you don't say what the other people would do.
In closing, I want to compliment the Access Board and the staff on their Herculean efforts so far. All of the issues above can be resolved with careful consideration and modification of existing structure usi ng the same care that has been exhibited so far. Although the guidelines seem daunting in their length, once you get used to them, they are far less complicated than most industry standards and specification documents. Technology is complex. You don't want to know the number of parts that are in all of the things you use every day, or the volumes of documentation it takes to do them. So the fact that the rules are long can be attributed to the fact that they are more specific and clear. The goal of the se guidelines is to take that complexity and to make it accessible and usable by all of us. Good luck and good heart in the rest of your work.
(Laughter.)

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. All right, Mr. Michael Paciello. Mr. Michael Paciello , The Paciello Group.

MICHAEL PACIELLO: W ell, good morning, close to a good after noon . It is good to see everybody again . It’s close to two years since my colleague Jim TOBIAS and I presented the TEITAC guidelines to you.

I notice just a couple of good points between the conversations and the observations that were made from those that met with us in San Diego at the CSUN conference, and today , some s elect points were made across the board by a number of51

constituencies , so we encourage the Access Board, and the Access Board staff , to take them seriously, as well as the comments that you will receive in written form.

The A NPRM public hearings were an important forum for stimulating the kind of discussion and listening that we really needed. Particularly in advance of the NPRM, which is actually the final process there for public comments. So what we get today , really kind of gives us a feel for what the future should look like.
And it is also important to recognize , as has been stated by a number of individuals today, that what we are looking at is essentially l andmark rulemaking. Not just for at the federal level, but certainly on a national level for states. W e have become , the Section 508, Section 255 refresh ha s become a model standard. And a key aspect of that, is , again, as you have heard echoed throughout the day , the notion of harmonization has been an important theme, and ha s been carried through. So it is good to see that.
I think it is also important to realize that we are being watched very closely by the international market, the international industry standards space. Wehave had some representatives today, from international standards organizations. And again, what we do lays the groundwork for t he future of harmonized standards. I'm particularly concerned about those that are on the table, so to speak . I n Europe the 376 procurement mandates

-- what we do here will likely establish a very strong basis there. Wehave already seen some of what we have done modeled in the Ontarian ’s Accessibility Act of Canada . T he Japanese standards organizations are looking at us , as well as other organizations throughout the world , so it is important that we take these comments from our colleagues here, and our constituencies , very critically. I have four areas of recommendation, maybe , observations , that I would like to put forward to you. The first is something that we heard , interestingly enough, in San Diego

. I didn't quite hear it as much today, so I'm going to reiterate that. The refresh process needs to be streamlined. And it needs to be dynamic in nature. It needs to move kind of like what we have heard from some of our members here today, to move along with the52

technology. And the problem, the rea l problem there, is that technology is moving at breakneck speeds and the internet speed , so to speak, but unfortunately, issues around interoperability and assistive technology, and accessibility are not able to keep up with that speed. And so the gap th at we think is getting closer is actually getting larger. So I really want to encourage the Access Board to look at ways for streamlining this process.

It took us 19 months as the TEITAC committee to put together two statutes and standards which was at that time, you know, was a new attempt at pulling together combined standards. It has taken the Access Board and its staff almost two years, 23 months to be exact, to get to this point of an ANPRM . W e are frankly speaking, probably at least 15, or 18 mon ths away before we might see this as law , w hich is the standard that we really want. That is just too slow. It is absolutely unacceptable at that point. The second observation : The federal agencies and the employees that work for the Federal Governme nt need tools . T hey need training . T hey need quality assurance reports in order to do their jobs well , i n order to procure technology that is truly accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities , w hether they work for the Federal Government, or w hether they are a member of the public and citizens of this country, and of this nation. So that means that you need to look at new paper tools beyond, for example, the notion of a voluntary product accessible template. The VPAT is a good starter documen t, kind of an overview more or less, but it doesn't provide the profound quality assurance, technical descriptions of what in fact is the state of the technology that I as an agency am procuring. Weneed to train the contract officers and the purchasing a gencies and not just a one

- time deal. This has got to be a continual thread because of the constant turnover in personnel. Provide them with the paper tools, provide them with software tools that they can use, and that they can rely on. And I suspect th at we need better enforcement goals. For example with the current Section 508 , the Department of Justice is supposed to be having reports sent to them every other year. I have seen one. I haven't seen another since the first report after the first Secti on 508, or the Section 508 that was ratified in 2001. So we need better enforcement controls within the agencies.53

Third : ICT companies, and corporations and businesses, need better incentives than what we are giving them. To say that product features are a great thing, and that is a competitive advantage, that's true. But it's not enough, and I constantly wondered how it is that over the last five years alone, we have seen the growth in businesses, and the green corporations, and the alternative energy companies evolving at , again , breakneck speeds that we can't possibly compete with. W hy are they able to do that? Because they have incentives that have been given to them by this Federal Government. They have tax breaks. They have research and develo pment funds, they have stimulus funds that have been given to them. They are rewarded, small business es investigate some incentives. These are all of the things that need to go into that cost marketing report that we need to pull together. Provide busin esses with business incentive s , that is, in plain language, money, will drive them not only to innovation, but drive them to building and developing accessible and usable technologies for people with disabilities.
The last point : I thought it was quite interesting this notion of self

- service systems being carried into the guidelines, and into the A NPRM. I think that this gives us something to really think about because the motivation appears to be more holistic. Not just about 508 technology. It is ab out where are we going with disability laws and mandates for the future. Weare talking about the Americans with Disabilities Act, and frankly, from my perspective, that's great, because technology has become a fundamental staple in our lives. W e need to address this issue and there are a lot of good comments stated and there will be many more forthcoming . W e want to take that notion of self

- service systems and give them the equal time and equal opportunity to lay the groundwork for the future of new man dates like the Communications Act, ADA, and the Air Carrier Access Act. Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you.54

NEIL MELICK: Okay, that was our last registered speaker. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and speak? If you will just come u p, state your name, and who you represent.

KAREN PELTZ

- STRAUSS: Hi, my name is Karen Peltz

- Strauss, Deputy Bureau Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission. My statement is very brief. I just wanted to thank you all for your extraordinary work in putting this together , a nd say that we look forward to working with you. Because at least one half of what you are doing will a ffect our work as well , in terms of updating the guidelines for Section 255 of the C ommunications act. And so , we look forward to working with you. As you know, we also have a national broadband plan that we will be implementing over the next few years, not only the next year , but the next few years, and we look forward to being ab le to collaborate with you very closely as we go about both updating our Section 255 rules, and implementing the broadband plan. Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you.
NEIL MELICK: Thank you.

MARK REW : Hello. My name is Mark Rew

. I’m w ith the C ompu ter E lectronics Accommodations P rogram. I would like to thank the Access Board, and the ad hoc committee for hosting this, and the hard work that you have done so far , i n taking input from the various stakeholders. A couple of points : the CAP program is the centralized funding source for assistive technology in the Federal Government . W e help promote and provide an open opportunity for employment for people with disabilities in the Federal Government. There' re a couple of areas where this Refresh signif icantly impacts our goals and objectives. Our objective is being able to provide the assistive technology to allow someone to perform their job, to do the work that they need , to meet their performance requirements on their job. W e do that through purcha se of assistive technology and purchase of training. There are a couple of areas

... O ne, for us, it's55

more important that the information and communication technology functions for the individual using assistive technology , than it is just meeting a set of technical guidelines. The technical guidelines are critical. They are important. But the end result for us is, does that IT environment, or ICT environment function well enough for the person to perform their job if they are qualified for the job.
The other issue on opening opportunities for employment is that we have had a set of standards , so far , in the Federal Government since 2001. The implementation of those standards has been extremely lacking. After nearly 8, coming up on 9 years, it's sti ll a majority of IT environments are weak in the full implementation of 508. So the areas that would be helpful to address would be for the agency's guidance on what is necessary for RFPs, what needs to be in statements of work, how testing and quality
co ntrols are implemented, and particularly, and I want to

-- it was mentioned earlier, refreshes, and updates to technology, particularly, modifications to IT, or ICT contracts.
This area of ensuring that the agencies do follow the standards and do follow the law and implement Section 508 and 255, is critical. And this is probably today the weakest link we have in ensuring that the access to the information technology environment and opportunities in the Federal Government are available. Thank you.

NEIL MELICK: Thank you.

TIM CREAGAN : Thank you. Is there anybody else?
NEIL MELICK: Is there anybody else? W e , both the board and the staff , want to thank you for your participation today, and hopefully, your continued review and comments as we move f orward through the public comment period.
As you can tell, this is a very technical and complicated standard and guideline

. W e need everybody's input. That was one of the reasons we went through the Advance N otice of P ublic R ulemaking so that we c ould get some early comments

. We56

understand the process is long , so we ask that you make those comments as soon as possible. I understand that sometimes it's the last minute these comments get in and we would sure love staff to get on these comments so that we can get back to work on finishing the N otice of P ublic R ulemaking. At this time, if there is any other B oard member that would like to make comments I open it up to them at this time.
RON GARDNER: It has been said that I never met a microphone that I didn't like.
(Laughter.)
RON GARDNER: My name is Ron Gardner and I c o - chair with Neil. I would like to thank all of you for coming, and I would like to thank those of you who prepared their comments and want to send in written comments. I don't know, I might be strung up for this, but you know, there are a lot more people i n this room. I just sense that there's more interest. Neil asked for any other comments. W e are scheduled until noon; I know nobody doesn't mind getting out early.
(Laughter.)
RON GARDNER: I know nobody probably

-- that wasn't good English. Probabl y won't mind getting out early, but if there are others who want to make a comment, I really do appreciate these oral comments here in the public meeting. I think we all do.
So if there's anybody, now is the time. Make your way up here to the front. Again, we would like to thank you very, very much. Do we have somebody coming up?

ELIZABETH STEWA RT : No.

RON GARDNER: Good.57

ELIZABETH STEWA RT : No, I said no.

RON GARDNER: No. Rats.
(Laughter.)
RON GARDNER: Again, thank you very much. And I have to say that we have heard several times today about the length of the process. Believe me; it is something that we as B oard members struggle with, because we are appointed, you know, by the President to serve a defined term. Wecome, we are gone. The staff is here. The staff began this process with an advisory group, and then the TEITAC committee. They have been working with this process for months, and years. We ll, so have we now. But as many of you know, this process is probably going to still be alive and well after some of us on the B oard are gone. Don't lose your interest. Don't lose your patience. I can tell you that the staff is working very, very diligently, and again, David Capozzi and th e staff, David Capozzi and his staff really needs to be complimented because we dance into town once in a while and work a little bit between meetings. The staff is really carrying the weight on this, and so please, send your comments in, give them the op portunity, quite frankly to interpret it for us who are not geeks.
(Laughter.)
RON GARDNER: But please don't give up on the process. It is the process that we have, and I really do think it will work. W e just , you know, we do need to make it fast. So thank you very much for coming today and I will turn it back to Neil.

NEIL MELICK: Are there any other comments from the board?
(No response.)58

NEIL MELICK: Hearing none, I guess Ron was the only one that likes the mike. Okay, if there are no ot her comments we will close this public hearing, thank you. (Applause.)

END OF PUBLIC HEARING