Page **1** of **77** ` Public Hearing held by the UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD

On the 2011 ICT ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANPRM). January 11, 2012 Washington, DC

NEIL MELICK: G ood morning, everybody, we will start in about 3 minutes. Good morning, everybody. W elcome to our first public hearing for the second A dvance Notice of Public Rulemaking for Section 508 standards and 255 guidelines. Anyway, just real quick, my name is Neil Melick, and I'm the chairman of the ICT ad hoc committee, and will moderate this meeting
. W e want to welcome everybody and are glad to have you h ere and that you are participating
. W e hope that we receive some great comments
. B efore we actually get started , we just want to let everybody have a chance to introduce the Board that is here, and the staff
. W e will start on my left all the way down th e table, and come
across . J ust introduce who you have. DAVID MURPHY: D avid Murphy. D epartment of Defense liaison.Page **2** of **77** DEBORAH RYAN: D eborah Ryan, public member. KAREN BRAITMAYER: K aren Braitmayer, public member. PHILLI P JENKINS: P hil Jenkins, public member, Austin, Texas. TIM CREAGAN: T im Creagan, Access Board staff. NANCY STARNES: N ancy Starnes, public member. HANS VAN WINKLE: H ans Van Winkle, public member. CHRIS HART: C hris Hart, public member. JOHN BOX: J ohn Box, public member. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: R ose Marie, Access Board staff. NEIL MELICK: T hank you. I just want to recognize that to my right is Nancy, who is the Board Chair so she normally takes charge of everything and does a great jo b, but since this is an ICT issue she is going to let me take charge of this one. I will at this time turn it over to Tim to go over some slides on the rules and procedures. TIM CREAGAN: G ood morning, everyone
. T his morning we are scheduled to have o ur public hearing, and the rules that I'm putting up on the wall are pretty straightforward, they are supplied at all of the public hearings. T his is the Second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the ICT rule
. T his was originally published in the Federal Register on December 8th, 2011. W e are now in a public comment period which will go through March 7th. T his is the first of two public hearings which are scheduled for this. T he hearing today isPage **3** of **77** scheduled to last from 9:00 a.m., until noon
. T he other public hearing will be held March 1st, at the CSUN conference in San Diego. We currently have registered speakers on the docket. W e do have available spaces. W e ask that the public speakers today limit their remarks to 5 to 7 minutes each until we get through the list. Once we get through the list, we will open the comment s up to anyone in the room, and to anyone on the phone who wishes to speak. Y ou should notify t he staff at the registration desk in the back of the room if you want to testif y and you have not preregistered. And please, turn off or silence your cell phones. A s much as we are talking about technology, we don't want it to interrupt your testimony today. (Laughter.) TIM CREAGAN: W e will be keeping a transcript of today's p roceedings. T he captioning which you see, is a real time accommodation which is being provided for the duration of the hearing only. T h e remarks which people make will be posted o n Regulations.gov which is the official docket for this proceeding. F or
mo re information and the specific docket number, you can go to the Access Board website, and you can follow the links to R egulations.gov to follow the proceedings on line
. W e ask that you refrain from reacting to the public comments today. W e appreciate al l of the comments we hear. W e appreciate that many of you have made timePage **4** of **77** to come here or call in. So with that, I would like to turn this back over to the chair. NEIL MELNICK: T hank you, Tim. I too want to thank everybody; we are really excited abou t these public hearings
. A gain this is our second A dvance N otice
. W e held public meetings for the first A dvance N otice. I f it wasn't for the input and the comments, the standard s and guideline s would not be as advanced as they are
. W e take th is serio usly and want to take those comments
. T hat is why we will be listening today and not really getting involved in discussions, so we will be listening and taking in that input. W e really seriously use that input
. A t this time we want to also recognize tha t we wouldn't be where we were if it weren't for the efforts of those involved in the TEITAC. A nd I believe we have some of the TEITAC members here. I believe both chairs are here today. W ould you stand up and be recognized those that actually helped us get started in the ad hoc committee. T hank you. TIM CREAGAN: M ike Paciello and Jim Tobias were the co
- chairs of the TEITAC. A nd thank you to those members of the TEITAC who are present or calling in today. NEIL MELICK: T hey d id a tremendous amount of work and made our job a lot easier, so at this time we will go ahead and start with the public comment s. A gain, we will not be reacting and responding, we are just taking the stuff in. S o Judy Brewer, I think is the first one,Page **5** of **77** a nd she is on the line. JUDY BREWER: [No connection. Aringing noise is heard.] NEIL MELICK: T here is a technical issue. W e are trying to figure out where the ring is coming from. I s Judy there? I s Judy on? Judy, can you hear us? ROSE MARIE BUNAL ES: I t is disconnected, I don't even see Judy's name on there. T his is the Access Board. O perator. Operator, come in. NEIL MELICK: L ost the call. NANCY STARNES: W e are working on it. TIM CREAGAN: T his is Tim; I just got a text from Judy saying that they just lost sound on their end, so this is a technical glitch. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: M ark Richert are you in the room? I f you are ready, please take the witness stand. MARK RICHERT : I s this it? Is this fine? NEIL MELICK: Y es. MARK RICHERT: G ood morning, my name is Mike Richert. I am the P ublic P olicy director for the N ational F oundation for the B lind and it is a pleasure to be here this morning. NEIL MELICK: M ove the mike just a little closer. MARK RICHERT : Thank you
. B efore I beg in, I just want to thank all of you who have been involved in this, particularly, folks who have been in the leadership in TEITAC, all of the folks who participated inPage **6** of **77** that process, and certainly, the Access Board staff, who do yeoman's work and are often forgotten when it comes time for offering thanks. So it is a tremendous amount of work. I t has been literally years ’ worth of incredible efforts, so thank you very much for that. N FB is going to be offering written comments in addition to hopefully test ifying at CSUN. T he purpose today is not to only address specifics within the ANPRM, but frankly to address the Access Board. R eally it is more about addressing , we feel, the posture that frankly this administration seems to be taking with respect to rul emaking when it comes to technology. We are now dealing with a second ANPRM, in as many years. W e hear that the process moving forward to develop an NPRM and ultimately to wind our way to a final rule is going to take eventually even maybe even a couple more years. T his is not so much the Access Board ’s problem
-- c oming up
-- what I'm going to mention , but it is worth noting here
--- there are pending rule mak ings in a number of areas which overlap with the work that the Access Board is trying to do with respect to Section 508. J ustice is still wrestling with an equipment rulemaking. T hat too was posed as an ANPRM and we were promised that there would be some sort of movement with respect to equipment accessibility b y late last fall. T here was an ANPRM that was done with respect to web accessibility. T hat was put off, we feel unnecessarily, until December of this year, and God knowsPage **7** of **77** if we will see that. Over and over again, there seems to be a posture being taken which is to say , let's make the most of the rulemaking process instead of trying to get to a final rule. W e hope that that is not the motivation. B ut all indications seem to be that there isn't the kind of dispatch being taken with respect to getting ourselves to a point where we have concr ete rules in this area. And we feel that is a real problem. W e are very disappointed by that. N ow, I began these remarks by thanking everyone for their work, and we realize that over the course of the next 6 to 9 months to try to get to an NPRM , let al one farther down the field is going to be an incredible task. B ut we strongly, with all that we
-- with all that we have, urge that we move that process forward. W e feel there is absolutely no reason , no ne in the world , why we shouldn't be looking at , at least an NPRM within 6 months, and anything that can be done to coordinate that effort , to the extent that coordination is necessary with other branches of this government, particularly J ustice as they hopefully move forward with all deliberate speed on t heir rulemaking processes, we hope that that happens as well. Thank you very much for listening. NEIL MELICK: T hank you for your comments. D o we have the lines back up ? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: I f you pause one second we do need toPage **8** of **77** dial back into the m ain teleconference room. NEIL MELICK: O kay. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, could you locate Judy Brewer, and unmute. OPERATOR : A nd you wanted me to locate whom? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: J udy Brewer. OPERATOR : D o you want to talk to her or let you know that she is here. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: U nmute Judy Brewer: OPERATOR : T hey will hear you, I will join you now. NEIL MELICK: G reat. (Music) NEIL MELICK: J udy, are you there? JUDY BREWER: T his is Judy Brewer are you able to hear me? N EIL MELICK: Y es, Judy, could you go ahead. JUDY BREWER: O kay, thank you for this opportunity to comment with regard to the U
. S
. Access Board's 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Section 508, 255 and the Americans with Disabilities Act guide lines. M y name is Judy Brewer. I direct the web accessibility initiative at the W orldwide W eb C onsortium, W3C which is the standards organization for the web. I would like to ex press my appreciate to the Access Board for its careful attention to W3C ’s J une 2010 comments on the Access Board's 2010 ANPRM, and for thePage **9** of **77** B oard's attention to the many comments received with regard to web accessibility and electronic content. My preliminary comments today will be followed by more detailed written comments befo re the end of this comment period, and I wanted to just check for a moment that you can hear me okay. NEIL MELICK: Y es. JUDY BREWER: O kay, thank you
. M any commenters on the 2010 ANPRM expressed concern over the Board's initially proposed approach to web accessibility , which had changed some wording in some provisions from the W3C W eb C ontent A ccessibility G uidelines 2.0, that is WCAG 2
. 0, and in places had mixed some conformance levels. T hat approach would have fragmented international web accessibi lity standards and created conflicting requirements for industry implementers. I n contrast , the 2011 ANPRM proposes incorporation of WCAG 2.0 by reference. W e commend the Access Board on their updated approach , which we believe will benefit all stakehold ers. I ncorporation of web accessibility provisions by direct reference to WCAG 2.0 at a double A level provides significant accessibility for people with disabilities and older people
. T his approach provides a more feasible conformance scenario for indus try, and it increases opportunities for efficiencies among government organizations that can more readily share training and technical assistance resources.Page **10** of **77** I want to acknowledge some variability in use of the term "harmonization". I n the 2011 ANPRM the preamble contains subsection 6, “ WCAG 2.0 I ncorporation by R eference R ather t han H armonization ”
. I would like to clarify that many people in the field consider “ incorporation by reference ” to be one of the best approaches to achieving standards harmoniza tion rather than being something
o ther than harmonization. I ncorporation of WCAG 2 by reference would help protect against fragmented interpretations of web accessibility provisions by federal and state governments as well as governments of other countrie s. We urge other organizations to replicate “ incorporation by reference ” as a preferred approach to harmonization wherever possible. W e note with interest the Access Board's question number 5 regarding potential overuse of the WCAG 2 provision for confo rming alternative versions and hope to provide a pro perspective on this in later comments. W e also note with interest the Board's question number 9 regarding accessibility guidance for user interface components and content platforms and applications and note the availability of relevant guidance in W3C U ser A gent A ccessibility G uidelines 2.0. W e also note and appreciate the Board's attention to the important role of accessibility supporting web authoring tools in leveraging more efficient production of a ccessible web content and electronic content by federal agencies. A gain, I would like to sincerelyPage **11** of **77** thank the U
. S
. Access Board for this opportunity to make preliminary comments on the 2011 ANPRM, and look forward to providing additional comments in writin g. T hank you. NEIL MELICK: T hank you, Judy. W e are looking forward to those comments as well. O kay. JUDY BREWER: T hank you. NEIL MELICK: A re we going to go back on line? O kay. D uff Johnson. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, please mute Judy Brewer, and locate Duff Johnson. OPERATOR : T hank you, Duff Johnson. DUFF JOHNSON: [No response] ROSE MARIE BUNALES: D uff Johnson , are you on the line? OPERATOR : I don't have a Duff Johnson. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O kay, thank you. NEIL MELICK: T h en we move on to Jennifer Dexter. I think she is here. N o? TIM CREAGAN: N o, she is not in the room. NEIL MELICK: O kay, let's go down to Gregg Vanderheiden. No? Okay, Lauren M c LARNEY. LAUREN McLARNEY: H i, good morning, my name is Lauren M c LARNEY
. I ’m a G overnment P rogram S pecialist at the National Federation of the Blind
. W e are the nation's old est organization of thePage **12** of **77** blind with 50 state affiliate s plus DC and Puerto Rico. I would like to thank the Board for working so diligently on the R efres h and the feedback from the 2010 ANPRM
. W e are grateful to participate in the dialogue and are satisfied with the dialogue between the NFB and the Board since undertaking this R efresh
. F or blind Americans , inadequate access standards and widespread nonco mpliance has led to a perceived systematic failure of government agencies to meet their legal obligations under Section 508
. O ur members regularly call our headquarters to report their frustrations
. Dr. Jonathan L asar 's study released earlier this year i llustrated the point. B ecause of this, it is critical that the Board works on this update and finalizes the rule as soon as possible , s o there will be more robust standards and so we can work with 508 coordinators to ensure that they are implemented prope rly. F or my testimony today I'm going to briefly touch on the feedback we are going to submit in more detail in writing before the March 7th deadline , m ost of which falls under the 9 questions posed in the ANPRM. First, as noted in question 1, the Board has made significant changes to the structure of the proposed rules and we are very satisfied with those changes. T he draft guidelines were much more succinct and therefore much easier to comprehend and evaluate , so thank you for making my job a little e asier
. S econd , as noted in question 4 the proposed guidelines require conformance with thePage **13** of **77** functional performance criteria
-- even when technical provisions are not met. We are extremely happy with this requirement. I ncluding a performance standard and understanding its purpose is fundamental to achieving true accessibility and developing robust standards , so we anticipate seeing this requirement in the final rule
. T hird as noted in question 2 and in the preamble there are 9 types of official communica tions by federal agencies that are required to be accessible , a nd two remaining exceptions. W hile we are happy that the three earlier exceptions were removed we still have concerns about the remaining 2. E xception 1 reads that electronic content of any of the above types of communications stored solely for archival purposes or retained solely to retain the exact image of the original hard copy shall not be required to conform to the provisions of this document. W e urge you to edit this so only archival content that is internal, or not public facing, is exempt. Public facing content should be accessible on line where the public can access them and we need to ensure that option of access is preserved for blind people. Exception 2, reads: W orks in progr ess and drafts that are not public facing, and th ese are intended for limited internal distribution shall not be required to conform to the provisions. W hat if an agency has a blind employee that needs access to a draft or is working on the draft b efore i t is released to the public ? Even though most drafts arePage **14** of **77** internal it still need s to be accessible to disabled employees, so this exemption needs to be edited to reflect that right. F ourth, as noted in question 3, the Board changed the approach to functio nal performance criteria an d requires a feature be provided for low vision users
. W hile we are happy with the approach the language regarding “contrast” in Section 402.4 is too vague and therefore may not actually provide accessibility to low vision users
. It currently reads that “characters shall contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light background.” Light
- on - dark and dark
- on - light is too vague. We urge the Board to adopt the WCAG cont rast ratio, which calls for a minimum luminosity color ratio of 3:1. F ifth as noted in question 5, the Board expressed
concern about allowing conforming alternate versions that
-- that may facilitate two separate websites
-- one for the disabled and one for the nondisabled. W e share this concern. There is no effective way of ensuring that content and functionality on the alternate site will always be identical to the main web page. T he NFB does not approve of any approach to accessibility that perpetuat es discrimination
-- so we urge you to restrict the use of confo rming alternate versions. The language for E 2 0 5.3, and E202.6.2, requires an alternative means that "meets individual needs." We prefer the stronger language used in other parts of the ANPRM requiring substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of data and information. We assume thatPage **15** of **77** that is there in spirit because it appears in other parts of the ANPRM but we want to make sure that that is the standard for alternative
means. Six th , we encourage the Board to address ref r esh a ble braille technology in section 408.6
. I n implementing guidelines for real
- time text functionality the Board should revise the language to require ICT to interoperate outsides of its closed system with ref r e sh a ble braille technology to allow deaf
- blind users to utilize real time text systems
. F inally I would like to address the Board's decision to p ostpone coverage to self
- service machines. W e strongly object to this decision. I t is critical that the Board extend the ADA guidelines to kiosks during this rulemaking
. T echnology is moving at such a rapid rate that every year this initiative is delayed , more and more inaccessible machines are deployed in more and more venues. W e are already seeing self
- service machines in restaurants and museums replacing traditional checkout lines at pharmacies and grocery stores. DOT just closed their comment period for their rulemaking to address airport kiosks, and the Access Board should do the same with other self
- servi c e kiosks
. T his is an urgent need for the disability community considering the proliferation of this type of technology
. H onestly , the government is already behind in developing standards to address the inaccessibility of kiosks
. Th is concludes my testi mony . T hank you for your time
. T hePage **16** of **77** N ational F ederation of the B lind looks forward to working together o n the next steps. NEIL MELICK: T hank you, Lauren. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: D uff Johnson, operator. A nd unmute. OPERATOR : T here is not a Duff Johnso n on the phone. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: C ould you unmute “ GUS Johnson ” and ask if that is “ Duff Johnson ”
. OPERATOR : I 'm sorry what was the name? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: “ GUS Johnson ”
. A nd unmute. OPERATOR : Y our line is unmuted. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: D uff Johnson is that you? DUFF JOHNSON: Thanks very much, should I start? Mr. Chairman my name is Duff Johnson
. I'm the U
. S
. chair for ISO 14289 , the forthcoming international standard for accessible PDF , w ith a discussion of how PDF , the electroni c document PDF /UA format relates to WCAG 2.0 and the ANPRM of the Section 508
. I ’m here to deliver the message of how WCAG can find expression in PDF technology when PDF file s and software to read it both conform to PDF /UA , should the Access Board adopt i t as the applicable technical standard whenever the standards would regard WCAG 2.0 level AA, be applicable to a given PDF page, form or software application. Comments to the Proposed
-- Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be provided in a file com munication prior to the end of the currentPage **17** of **77** comment period. I last appeared before the Access Board to report on the progress of PDF in May 2010
. ISO was finalized in December of 2011, in Bellevue, Washington. T he final draft of the international standa rd or FD I S wi ll be distributed shortly. Acomplete mapping of what WCAG 2.0 success criteria apply , with the PDF subsections and paragraphs , is nearing completion
. F ollowing the final completion the PDF/UA will be formally published in the ISO website in 2012. PDF is imminent, supporting the new ISO standard for
-- nonetheless, some vendors are already planning
-- 14289 as WCAG 2.0 for PDF
. PDF format is no longer owned or controlled by Adobe Systems
. S ince 2008, PDF has been managed by the internation al standards process, ISO 32,000, that committee which I have the honor and responsibility of serving as project co
- leader with my colleague
. W e expect to publish some time in 2013, or 2014
. T he Access Board no t es PDF has a checkered past in the area of accessibility
. P rior to 2000, there was literally no way to make an accessible PDF file
. T he essential semantic structures to build up paragraphs from words didn't exist in Adobe's portable format document until PDF reference 1.3 was published by Adobe
. I n -- reliability and flexion interest, the PDF is internally complex. T he technology includes broad capabilities that go well beyond the simple printed pages ; PDF conceptual and operational challenges take a longPage **18** of **77** time to resolve. “ Why did it take s o long to produce 23 pages, ” it is a fair question. T he answer part is that PDF reference 1.7, which define d PDF in 2007, became ISO 32,000 in 2008 right in the middle of PDF development
. T he greater impact to the schedule, to the publication of WCAG 2.0 , also published in 2008, the general acceptance of WCAG 2.0
-- caused the committee to rewrite major sections of PDF QA from scratch an d entirely
-- embody WCAG 2.0 in the context of
-- I want to remind the Board of the unique position of PDF with respect t o electronic documents in general, and government documents in particular. A ny application that can print can make a PDF
. I t is critical to recognize that the self
- contained flexible paper
like PDF includes quality that the marketplace thinks is vital , a lso making accessible PDF a challenge for software developers. I t is an unavoidable challenge
-- the needs of successful PDF reflect accurately the very features
-- reflects accurately the features in the PDF universal electronic document formats everywhe re in Section 508 reaches. T he Access Board knows this well. T he notice posted on the Access Board site includes a link to an appropriately acceptable PDF
-- at the very top of the page. The new technology is relied on large ly
-- because PDF delivers a reliable multiplatform viewing and printing experience as a “hardcopy reference”. It’s an objective fact that PDF is regarded as the default final
- form electronic document format for formal or closely designedPage **19** of **77** content. T he A ssociation for E lectronic C ont ent M anagement, received recommendations from the US interests in international standards that the electronic content at the ISO level, ISO 14289 is not for end users
-- the standard details obligations for both software developers and content authors
. Ma ny possible software features , functions and user interface experiences are possible in accomplishing PDF requirements
. PDF /UA very deliberately does not prescribe any specific software interface. I t is up to the developer, using WCAG 2.0, supported by P DF/UA to com ply with WCAG 2.0 level AA
. A draft mapping detailing the correspondence at the Success Criteria level between WCAG 2.0 and PDF /UA is posted on AIIM’s PDF Standards wiki. This mapping will be available for the general public in the first half of 2012, and implementation guide later in the year
. Two years ago, I told the Access Board that PDF /UA would be published in early 2012
-- that was slightly optimistic. I cannot say with confidence that the standard , an official mapping tool of WCAG 2.0 , and the implementation guide for PDF UA will be completed in 2012. I can say that the association created the
-- will shortly launch a working group to develop validation. I can say that vendors agree that PDF/UA conformance is a means to accomplish W CAG 2.0 level AA conformance with the PDF file software
. S everal vendors have already committed to supporting PDF /UA, i ncluding Adobe and instant messenger. T he free PDF /UAPage **20** of **77** validator wi th support in donations from
-- Net Centric and others, several
-- ex pressed interest in PDF /UA including the British standard and German standard group. O rganizations such as the AFB are also following these efforts. I n my conclusion, I will say that PDF /UA i n about 20 pages , provides authoritative restrictions and affir mative requirements on the accessible usage of PDF , which is formerly known as ISO
-- NEIL MELICK: M r. Johnson. DUFF JOHNSON: L ike PDF itself you don't have to know how it works to

– appreciate the results. T hank you for this opportunity, making pro gress towards an international standard for accessible PDF
. 2012 will be the year of PDF /UA. I have in cluded a list of references in the remarks, and as I mentioned, the proposed changes to the ANPRM to mention PDF /UA , and appropriate settings will be fo rthcoming before the end of the comment period. T hank you very much. NEIL MELICK: T hank you, Mr. Johnson, thank you for your comments. O kay. J ennifer Dexter has shown up, so if Jennifer will come up. JENNIFER DEXTER: [Approaching the witness table] NEIL MELICK: W alks in the door and we bring you right in. TIM CREAGAN : N o waiting. JENNIFER DEXTER: Hi everyone. I 'm going to start by apologizingPage **21** of **77** I'm in day one of new progressive lenses so if I'm going like this [holds paper at arm’s length] that is why. I t happens to the best of us. Good morning, everybody, I know many of you but for those of you who don't know me , I a m Jennifer Dexter
. I 'm the assistant vice president for government relations at Easter Seals. I was also a proud member of the ITAAC and TEITAC. A nd my role today will not be to address the technical details but more the policy objectives of the overall goal of Section 508, 255 and keep our eye on the ball about what it really means for people with disabilities. Easter Seals h as a long history of working with government to assure that people with disabilities have access to all aspects of society, including information technology. I really do want to commend the work of the Access Board and the changes made in the ANPRM I thin k are very positive ones and are inch ing ever closer to having a sustainable consistent approach to access to technology that will always serve to help us later on. Ultimately, what I hope is that the goal of all of this work is that communication inform ation is provided in a timely way and in a manner that protects the privacy, and the independence of individuals with disabilities. T hat language is kind of taken from the Department of Justice, and many of us in the consortium ha ve been using that as kin d of a gold standard. I t also should lead to a status where all people with disabilities can have consistent expectations about whatPage **22** of **77** information they should expect to easily access and how that access will be achieved, whether they are at the DMV or at th e Sprint store. As to the specific questions in the ANPRM, I have a few points to share. I would like to start by saying that about question 1 I think the goal of streamlining and clarifying is a laudable one , a nd I don't think that the changes you made will weaken the expectation of access, so I do support that. For the question regarding the categories of information, I would like to say that the list is solid as long as it is interpreted relatively broadly
-- as in many things the devil is in the de tails. I could not think of things that didn't fit into those categories that were laid out but if they are defined more narrowly or interpreted I could see that things would be excluded. T here is a difference between these requirements and individual ac commodations. This also came up when you were raising the issue about maintenance areas. F or instance, it is clear that if you have an employee who is the network manager and needs to access the server farm, you might have to work with that individual i n a way to make the maintenance area accessible for that person to achieve the job, but that may not be the starting point. So it is just kind of making clear that there are
-- that individual accommodations are different , or that they don't get preclude d by the things that are in the ANPRM.Page **23** of **77** Another area was the vision standards. I think one important thing here is to make sure it's clear that functional access is a priority and that access through assistive technology is a secondary option
. There is a stratification there, otherwise we will have a fall back on assistive technology too often, and that will kind of limit innovation in ways to get direct access where it can be achieved
. There is no issue in the area of the relationship between function al and technical provisions too. I think that we will have access defined as access after you go through steps X , Y and Z
-- the sticky keys option is often used there
. I t is accessible if you turn on the sticky keys option in the kiosk
-- well somebody might not be able to know that, or do that. I t may be burdensome, and could, and again, that could hinder the innovation that could lead to more direct access for things that maybe aren't possible right now, so setting what is a goal , what is achievable , and kind of making sure that is clear , is important. The alternate web pages issue is , I think , another one where the devil is in the detail s . T here needs to be assurance that there is clear, obvious, and constant information and guidance on accessing
a lternative pages, and that there is a true strength of equality and no way any tearing down of the information or the experience.

“ Watering down ”
-- t hat is one for the technical experts to solve in terms of how you achieve that , but that is kind of like what I would like to see as the end product.Page **24** of **77** The last thing I wanted to comment on was the question about tablet access in the back of tactilely discernible keyboard s -- it is a good question. I think it really shows that we need to recognize the pace of technological evolution and the need to keep up with it. F or people with disabilities, for whom a tablet offers a good alternative, I think we need to recognize that there is some equivalency there, while not letting the makers of traditional keyboard s o ff the hook for a tactilely integrated environment. The world of disabilities is large, and diverse, and particularly in the area of communications technology, where I think the emphasis can tend to be on those with disabilities a ffecting vision and hear ing. We need to recognize that there can be a variation and we will need to be flexible and be responsive to that. T hat's a tough one but I just wanted to really just make that point. I would also like to say that we think that the work of the WCAG 2.0 is positive and dynamic and a good thing to tie our work to. I think it helps with the progress of technology in keeping up with it. I t allows us to be tied to something that gives you some technical specifications without having to go through this proc ess constantly. So those are the points I wanted to make
. T hank you for your time. D o we have a question period now, or
-- I would be happy to take them. NEIL MELICK: At this time, we are just taking comments, thanksPage **25** of **77** Ms. Dexter. W e are going to go back to try to get Gregg Vanderheiden. I s he...? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, locate Gregg Vanderheiden, and unmute. OPERATOR: H is line is unmuted. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: T hank you. GREGG VANDERHEIDEN: H ello this is Gregg, can you hear me. NEIL M ELICK: W e sure can, you can proceed. GREGG VANDERHEIDEN: W ell thank you very much for holding this hearing. T he re - structuring that was done was a major overhaul, total reorganization, and it has many benefits. I t also has some unintended problems th at were introduced, and I will highlight those in a minute, but first I wanted to say that overall it is much cleaner. I t is easier to understand. Anumber of places, a bunch, a set of detailed provisions were boiled down, and to their essence, and you
w ere able to capture most or all of it in the simpler format and this is really great. T he incorporation of WCAG for documents and web content, and web apps, is a major improvement. Y ou will need to create an application note to cover a few places where i t may not be obvious to some people how you translate between web and documents. F or example, a web page is equivalent to an electronic document. N ot a page in a document. S o things like that. T he se notes are fairly straightforward and relatively easy, but th ey will helpPage **26** of **77** get around problems where people are looking at a document, and the language in the provision sounds like it is addressing only a website. Industry will appreciate your moving the design process requirements out of the requirements, i f you will, and into advisory notes, and focusing more on outcomes rather than designating process. The FPC, the functional performance criteria , are restored where required
. A s we pointed out in the comments, this is necessary, since it is very easy to design inaccessible products. I t needs a technical guideline when they are used alone
. A dvancing technology is going to cause this to happen even more
. W e will comment in more detail later but tablet computers, for example can be addressed fairly well with the guidelines you already have. I f the
-- if they are straightened out, if you will. The old guidelines would have covered it with the
-- and the new ones will when they are fixed. U nfortunately, with the restructuring and the deletion of provisi ons , a large number of provisions were deleted, and when you read this over the first time, you don't notice what is not there. S o it looked really great , and it was only on very careful analysis that we found some sort of structural flaws that are subtle , but very serious , a nd we need to address them. First there are two problems that existed before that still haven't been addressed
. T he closed product section, as we commented thePage **27** of **77** last time was broken , and it remains broken. T his was not your fault. We broke it as part of the TEITAC. I t was broken in the TEITAC report when it came in. W e did work out a way to solve it, and sent text last summer for how to do that. But that may have been too late in your process and it wasn't used. B ut the current version actually made it worse. I t is likely that most products that were designed following just the closed products guidelines would not be accessible to many of the people intended, and we will provide illustration of that and some more information on how to do that. A second thing was testability. T he functional permanence criteria were untestable
. R equiring them, but not making them testable, is going to be a problem , b ecause it is hard to say that you must follow something. N ow, this is a probl em even if it were used the old way where you said , “W ell, if the technical w eren’t met, we would use the functional performance criteria to evaluate the functional equivalence .” Y ou can't do that either if they are not, if you can't tell if you have pass ed them or not. T he language on the current ones moved it actually away from testability, and so those need to be worked on. I n fact some of them now, if you have something that is very accessible, you can't meet the guidelines because they require, for example, if you have something with a digital system, has got no noise, you are required to have aPage **28** of **77** mechanism to reduce the noise, and if there isn't any, you know, how do you conform to it? T hings like that. A number of the other provisions
-- one was m entioned earlier, contrast, et cetera, were in a testable form, and now they have been changed into a form where it says that things must be light or dark. Y ou can't require people to make something lighter than something else if you don't tell them how m uch , s o we need to get testable ba ck in there. Now, one of the things you did that was really good that caused a problem, is the
-- you took the web and you pulled it and you said let's use WCAG, and then you said let's use WCAG for web apps and let's
us e WCAG as a test for documents, and that was great
. B ut you then took all of those provisions out of the guidelines but you didn't cover the regular applications, so all of those provisions that you removed because you no longer needed them for web apps, et cetera, still needed to be there for software. S o as a result, most , or a large percentage of the provisions that dealt with how to make software accessible are now missing. I have been trying to see if there is a structural way of handling that, if t here is something that we can use to get those things back out, or if they need to be put back in explicitly, but in doing this very nice thing for these other three areas, you actually took them all out, and the accessibility provisions that are there hav ing to do with AT compatibility, many of the guidelines thatPage **29** of **77** you took out are the parts that have to be there for the AT to work. So if they are not there, it doesn't do any good to make what's left be AT compatible, because it will not, it will not work, and it is too technically complicated to go into here. NEIL MELICK: M r. Vanderheiden, you need to wrap up as time is running short. GREGG VANDERHEIDEN: O kay, two other quick ones, all of the communication related requirements are related in hardware at a time when we are moving all of our communications to software. S o it basically means that none of the software
- related communication products will have to be accessible. A nd none of the software ones will work with any of the hardware ones. S o if you make a phone call, you have to know whether or not the person at the other end you are calling is on a hardware, or software communication device, et cetera, so that needs to be fixed , also c aption ing , telephony support, et cetera. H aving said all of this , I still think that the basic approach has great merit, and even when the needed provisions and fixes are in place, this organization and structure I think can work, and make it easier for people to apply and use. W e need to be a little careful that we don't get back into the approach of separating things out into categories, because we are going to see things blending back together. It will be somewhat longer, but I think we can retain the modularity that you th us deduced. I think you need to have an extendedPage **30** of **77** comment period, however, because I think some of the issues that are going to be raised are going to take time to work through, and it would be good to have time to discuss them with other groups in the industry, et cetera
. I n coming back in, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. NEIL MELICK: T hank you, Mr. Vanderheiden. Next, I think we have Brian Landrigan. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, can you locate Brian Landrigan. O kay. O perator, can you locate Jon Gunderson. OP ERATOR : Y es, one moment. I don't have him. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: T hank you. M r. Chairman, can we go to Jim Tobias, then. NEIL MELICK: Y es, we will go to Jim, Jim is here. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: T hank you, operator. JIM TOBIAS: T hank you all very much for the opportunity to talk with you a little bit this morning about the ANPRM. I 'm going to be submitting detailed comments later, but I would like to go over just a few things that especially might be valuable to having members of the Board all here at once
. I don't want to be , you know, too fear inducing, but I think you have to consider if the R efresh schedule that we are currently on is repeated the next time, we are going to be looking at trying to guess now what technologies will be in use 10, 12, 15 years from now. T hat's pretty impossible to do. A nd I think wePage **31** of **77** have two opportunities, I guess. O ne is to try to get it right for that long a period now, and the other is to use what was suggested during the TEITAC process, which is kind of a ro lling R efresh so that you can identify compliance issues with technologies as they begin to emerge, and either develop some comprehensive guidance materials for use by designers and consumers, something that says, well using the current provisions, this ne w kind of product fits under these following provisions, and these following design solutions are acceptable ways of complying, or the more arduous and probably difficult option to actually develop new provisions to cover those gaps. Also, I think it is important for the Board to understand that the provisions that you develop will be used in other proceedings, so we are already seeing references to Section 508 and 255 in proceedings under the ADA, and Department of Labor, O ffice of F ederal C ompliance C on tract programs, Department of Transportation, FCC, and others. So you might want to talk with Judy Brewer about what it is like to have provisions developed for the context of use that you had in mind, and other people come along and say, “Yeah we are goi ng to use those as well.” You know, there is a little unexpected extension going on. T he other non
- technological issue I would like to talk about is the technical assistance that the Access Board is required to provide even under the statutory language. So I would ask you to consider how you arePage **32** of **77** going to prepare for the use of these new provisions, the new regulations. O ne of the most salient points is that instead of having product categories, you now have basically provisions sort of by feature, or b y characteristic of a number of different products, and while this I think , everyone agrees is a better approach, a more approach that is easier to extend to products that are similar, or products that may be emerging, it makes it a problem for people who are new to the domain. S o if I am a junior designer in company X, and I'm told to deal with 508, I can't look at 508 anymore and say well we make TVs, so where is the TV section. A ll right, it is spread throughout, hardware, software, web, who knows what
. S o I would ask you to consider who the users of these regulations are, the many audiences, and how you can facilitate the adoption, and interpretation, and rendering of the regulations in the most intelligent, and manageable, and accessible, if you don' t mind my using that word in another context
-- manner, so that they can figure out what it is that they are supposed to be doing, and do it well. Similarly, the Access Board is the target, or the recipient of many technical assistance requests, and I wo uld ask you to consider a manner of collecting these requests for information and responding to them but also developing a repository of answers, you know, FAQs, or frequently asked questions from users, from designers about how they should interpret the regulations, and publish that information asPage **33** of **77** broadly as possible. In doing this, you might want to cooperate with other federal information resources on accessible technology. I 'm sure you are aware of the FCC's information clearinghouse, and Job Accommo dation Network, and other information resources about technology that need the kind of information that you will be generating, and can also provide information to you. So there are three more or less technical areas that I want to comment on as well. T he cognitive disability issue, is a major problem, and it really does need to be addressed, I was disappointed to see it pretty much slip off the screen in the current ANPRM. I feel strongly that it needs to have a functional p erformance criterion. Y ou h ave several suggestions already on how that could be written. R egarding the objections that many have made and prove n that cognitive disabilities
-- there are few techniques that are available, however, it should be true that one of the intended effects o f the regulations is to drive testability, is to encourage industry and researchers to figure out , how do we address the needs of those consumers in ways that are feasible to implement in the industry. I n the meantime there are some testable items. I wou ld especially encourage you to focus on the plain language requirements, there is a Plain Language Act of 2010, in fact, that establishes a plain language lead officer in every agency. T here are techniques of plain languagePage **34** of **77** development, and testing and wh at have you. Another suggested provision is the consistent use of language terms and icons so that people are not confused by , you know, a word means something in one context and something else in another context. And I believe the WCAG 2.0 provisions include some language with benefit to users with cognitive disabilities. Handheld products are a category that existed the last time you went around developing provisions, but they weren't as dominant as they are now
. Y ou know, when I refer to handheld products it is all of the things that we use now, sometimes in greater frequency than desktop products, or you know, permanent means to all products, and we know people with impaired dexterity have difficulty with these products
. Y ou have to fish them out of pocket s or purses, and you have to hold them into view of proper orientation, you have to hold them with one hand and use them with another hand and the keys are getting smaller and smaller, and then you have to return them to the pocket or purse, and none of these requirements were considered under TEITAC
. I really do think that it is an area that you might have to pay some attention to, and it might be in section 407, the operable parts section. NEIL MELICK: Y ou have about 30 seconds. JIM TOBIAS : O kay, let's see, I will just
-- the final area is touchPage **35** of **77** screen and other gesture interfaces which are similarly so successful in the marketplace, and there are, in fact, existing, and effective pathways to accessibility in those products and designs. H owever, it is possible to design a touch screen interface that is inaccessible, and rather than relying on a functional performance criterion, I think that the Access Board should develop, or figure out some way through guidance materials, or provisions, t o develop the requirements for an accessible gesture interface including touch screen interfaces, thank you.NEIL MELICK: T hank you. I guess we are going to go back, try to get Sailesh Panchang. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, could you locate Sailesh Panchang, and unmute. OPERATOR: I 'm sorry, what was the first name? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: S AILESH. OPERATOR: O ne moment. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: T hank you. OPERATOR: T he line is open. SAILESH PANCHANG: G ood morning, thank you. M y name is
-- can you hear me all right? NEIL MELICK: Y es, we can hear you. SAILESH PANCHANG: M y name is Sailesh Panchang, I'm the lead accessibility auditor, of D eque systems, a company that makesPage **36** of **77** accessible products and wide services in this field. T hank you for gi ving me the opportunity to address you all. There are basically two things that impressed me
. O f course, in one respect was the reference to the WCAG 2 by reference
. T h at really helps harmonization that a f fects these standards
. I n 255 I see now, there is involvement of people with disabilities i n the product design evaluation phase, so these were doing things that impressed me the most. My comments are twenty - two or three, and basically they relate to the organization of the content and structure of the document. I am a screen reader user, and as I went through the document, I saw the labeling of chapters that are labeled chapter 1, and chapter 2. So we do have a prefix of “ 508 ” chapter 1, and “ 508 ” chapter 2, a s in Section 508. Then we have “ 255 ” chapter 1, “ 255 ” chapter 2
. I think those w ere kind of repetitive, because later on in a later chapter, chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, there is a reference to just chap ter 1
. I understand the intent is maybe to avoid duplication, and that is why it has been done this way, but I think it would be better if the chapters were numbered all the way from chapter 1 to 8, and the first chapter
sa id chapter 1, Section 508 application, and so forth. So the 508 and 255 should be placed after the chapter numbers. And the c hapter s should be numbered 1 to 8. The second thing was in chapters 3 to 6, right at the beginning ofPage **37** of **77** chapters 3 to 6, there is a little section on scope. N ow, all of those sections, all of those pieces seem to refer to chapter 2, but if you look at the chapter on platforms that is basically chapter 5, the scope section there refers to chapter 1. I think when I read the document I think the intent is to say chapter 2, so I believe that is I don't know whether it is a typo or what. S o that is something that maybe can be reviewed. Then under the advisory section in just 3 parts of the document, I see references to best practices. N ow, yes, I note that these are advisory, and they are not actual regulations, but while best practices are often kind of te chnology dependent, so whether it is appropriate to include these practices is something that might need to be looked at, and if it is appropriate, then maybe whether best practices can be included in other areas as well, not just 3, but throughout the doc ument. M y last comment was about applications. I was trying to see whether it applies to mobile apps, and software applications, and it was only when I went to
-- only when I went to chapter 5, I saw the reference to mobile applications. I think maybe i t's something that you might want to make more obvious by pulling it up right to the section on definitions of platforms, and what they include
. A n advisory there might refer to coverage of mobile applications rather than it being much lower down in the d ocument. Those are my comments. T hank you very much for the time.Page **38** of **77** Oh, and lastly, there was the process of actually submitting comments to the ANPRM
. O f course, that is not directly related to this document, but that process is very difficult in terms of accessibility and there are lots of challenges, and it is very difficult to make comments
. T hank you very much. NEIL MELICK: T hank you, Mr. PANCHANG. W e will look into that. A nd next we have DAVE PORTER
. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, can you l ocate DAVE PORTER
. Or DAV ID PORTER
. OPERATOR : T hat line is open. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: T hank you. NEIL MELICK: G o ahead, Mr. Porter. DAVE PORTER: T hank you very much. T hank you to the members of the Access Board for the work you have been doing. We are all very appreciative of the work you are doing. I 'm going to make my
-- keep my comments short. T here are three areas that I want to address here. T he first one is the
-- with the exponential expansions of technology as a goal here. A nd I spok e to this board several years ago about the evolutions of the touch screen particularly with regards to phones
. I had my iPhone with me and I demonstrated that a little bit. I t is amazing how much technology has evolved even since then, and it is all the more daunting when I look at the challenges that you face in terms of trying to find ways to balance thePage **39** of **77** accessibility issues that the assistive technology creates. The first one

... of course, well, let me focus on two. O ne is gesture technology. I n the areas that I work, I work in development. The company that I work with , we are an R&D company, so we see a lot of our things coming down the line. T he two biggest areas where we are seeing a huge flow of RFPs, are people looking for different ways to ei ther employ the technology that they are looking for, or exploit the technology that they have, is in gesture technology, which is the act of being able to use hand gestures, not just necessarily on a piece of equipment, but in a lot of cases, from across the room. People u se those gestures to elicit a particular response. A s you can imagine, this is very difficult for people with visual impairments to be able to deal with. H owever, we are seeing them pop up in a lot of public places like areas where the re is a workout rooms for exercises, places where people do modeling, where a gesture made
-- a full hand gesture from across the room will elicit a particular response on the screen and expect you to either follow that response, or somehow interact with th e reaction that the screen is making to the gesture that a person is making. This is a real challenge for the developers to try to figure out how to make that accessible, how to convey the information that goes on , on that screen which is essentially att empting to elicit an intuitive response. I t is difficult to find ways to say that in a cognitive mannerPage **40** of **77** that doesn't distract the effort of the initiative that the technology, the interface and their inter
- reaction with the technology is creating
. T his i s becoming a real problem and is going to becom e more critical as these things occur in public places where people are expected to operate, to work with these screens , a s a part of a series of activities that they would be doing. Secondar il y, I hope that is clear, the second area is the whole issue of kiosks. I know now that a lot of municipalities, their budgets are becoming smaller, and they are finding ways to impart information to the public in concert with the needs of the public , p articularly, and as the technology evolved as they lose the personnel that they use to be able to do that , they are going to resort more and more to kiosks. The re are two problems created when using kiosks in a public space. O ne of them is that if you are dealing in a pu blic building where there
are a lot of other noise and distractions going on in the background, the kiosk becomes particularly difficult to work with for a person who is going to rely on audio output from that. T he second problem that it creates is that the technology of kiosks is evolving so fast, and also the demands that people who want to be able to use kiosk services, is evolving so fast , that it is hard for people to keep up with what the expectations of that technology actually are, which of course , because people who work with accessibility are dealing in reaction to technology that is being presented. T hatPage **41** of **77** technology is constant ly challenging us by trying to make ways to make it accessible. S o for example , once you figure out how to solve a prob lem at one level, the technology continues to evolve and creates a whole new set of challenges, accessibility related challenges that exist while it keeps trying to, keeps moving us forward
. I t keeps being a challenge, for example, for municipalities that have budget constraints and can't make the quick adjustments. I don't even know what kind of standards could be established to assist this. B ut I see this as a daunting problem. T he third and last one I want to comment about, is the other new elephant in the room , is the digital ID. One of the big challenges and one of the big goals of a lot of companies in the next couple of years is to find ways to eliminate the password, the traditional password that
we use. A nd the number one thrust right now is to find ways to implement physical gestures, or some sort of physical characteristic identities to reflect that password. T here was a lot of experimenting with the pupil area . A nd there also had been some GSA attempts, but one of the big goals of a lot o f companies is to find ways to utilize parts of the physical manifestation of a person to replace the need to enter and to keep changing a password. T here are now updated databases available to capture the physical essence of a person and the unique chara cteristics that that person has to be able to establish password patterns, and that appears to be where a lot of people arePage **42** of **77** headed in terms of future technology. I know that is a daunting challenge, but I know that once again, we are going to get into som e serious disability related accessibility issues with that. S o I just want to put that on the table as a
-- as something to watch. I think that is all I have at this point. I want to thank you again very much for your work. NEIL MELICK: T hank you ve ry much, Mr. Porter. DAVE PORTER: Y ou are welcome. NEIL MELICK: T hat was Mr. Porter. Let's see. S ee if
-- is Brian still on the line? S ee if he is coming in. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator can you confirm that Brian Landrigan is still on the line ? OPERATOR : Y es, he is. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O kay, thank you. NEIL MELICK: P lease proceed. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: U nmute Mr. LANDRIGAN. BRIAN LANDRIGAN: G ood morning
. H onorable members of the United States Access Board, my name is Brian Landrig an, and I'm the director of sales and marketing for the Paciello G roup, a small consulting firm. O ur headquarters are in New Hampshire and we are solely dedicated to providing consult ant services in the area of application
-- and website accessibility for companies need ing to go and create accessible web properties.Page **43** of **77** I appreciate and thank the Board for this opportunity today to provide public comment on the Second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. T hat includes the revised draft of updated accessib ility requirements for information and communication technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. First I would like to commend the Access Board and the telecommunications and electro nic and information technology advisory committee for their diligence in developing and bringing to public the updated requirements. I n our business, we are acutely aware of how the old standards lacked acknowledgment of the vast changes in information te chnology that occurred over the past decade. My peers and I at The Paciello Group applaud interest to make information technology in general more accessible in the
-- people with disabilities. T he simple act of creating new standards and opening the dial ogue within industry is sparking a fervent interest in many of our clients that did not exist prior to that. W e are experiencing firsthand a new energy, and enthusiasm for providing a more open technology world. The o riginal announcement of TEITAC in 200 8 was warm ly welcomed by our competitors and clients and we see that as a watershed
-- unfortunately, nearly 4 years have passed since this announcement
. W hile we all understand that government sometimes moves at a slower pace than commercial business, th at TEITAC hasPage **44** of **77** not been
-- some of the clients are open ly questioning now whether they needed to spend the funds necessary to implement the changes
w e at TEITAC recommended. T o us, there are 3 points to be made regarding this. F irst, the delay in impleme nting the Section 508 and 255 ICT recommendations is having an adverse effect on our business and the business of consulting companies such as ours, who have invested in training, development, tools and other resources to become experts at accessibility. Second, we are not looking
-- the cost of ownership of models or return on investment. I t is our responsibility to link accessibility to public services
. T o create that information for our clients we need to focus on the guidelines. T here are further de lays , which are discouraging and deterring many companies who are accessibility proponents from i mplementing the new guidelines
. I would like to take a few moments to expand on these points
. F irst let me discuss the adverse effects on the business
. I r ecognize this is somewhat self
- serving , however , our business is built on the belie f that companies doing business with the Federal Government would need services such as ours
. B ecause several agencies have asked us about the new Section 508 standards, we perceived the knowledge gap between the agencies and the vendors, and worked quickly to fill that gap and we have been successful. W e continue engaging prospects and clients, learn how to comply with the federal
-- I'm sorry , with the federal procurement mandate and how toPage **45** of **77** create a more accessible technological environment for their customers. However, with the delay in the adoption of the new standards, we
are se eing the changes to the development and testing department based on our recommendation
-- f urther we are now seeing clients postpone adoption of the recommendations waiting to see if the new 508 guidelines will be further delayed or even canceled
. P l ease act swiftly to counter this perception
. S econdly the justification for adoption of the new Section 508 standards, we are concerned that the lag time is daunting
-- I'm sorry, was there a question? NEIL MELICK: N o. BRIAN LANDRIGAN : W e are concerned that
-- there are numerous comments and concerns regarding cost of implementation of the gui delines and the fiscal burden on agencies and businesses
. T his delay
-- mentioned by special interest groups make s us question whether a practical application of something is reasonable
-- if it occurred in the past and discussions were held by minorities a nd women and other special interest groups such as experts on accessibility, those discussions are clearly capable of creating a value proposition, demonstrating that cost is outweighed by additional benefits. W e can demonstrate that today and cost should not be a factor in the new Section 508
. W ith further delay you are exhausting what support there is for accessibility at universal usability. B ut as toPage **46** of **77** the implementation of new guidelines, in our work, we come in contact with product managers, develope rs, quality assurance professionals, procurement specialists, accessibility, CEO, CFO, COOs, and a number of them are excited and enthusiastic about putting in a product in the companies on the front line of greater access and opportunity for people with d isabilities. For a myriad of reasons, it is the right thing to do : i t is the law , it enhances their business, and improves their marketability
. A selling point is having people in agencies within the government that feel

– that it provides them with a satisfaction that we are all pulling together on the same end of the rope and sharing a common goal. T his is immeasurably helpful

– financial ly. A s many of you can empathize I'm sure from your own experience , they are fight ing a good fight and it is rewa rding but when you are on the front lines fight ing a good fight for a common cause, it is important that you have support of those behind the lines
. W ith out that support the fight is empty and impossible, without the passage of the new Section 508 standar ds
-- without full heart edly support ing that and that is not a good message. Once again I want to personally thank the members of the TEITAC committee for the enormous effort put forth to get to this point, I also want to thank the Access Board, and the s taff, as well as other federal agencies who volunteered for the diligent effort, the significantPage **47** of **77** progress of which you should all be justifiably proud
. T he new Section 508 standards will find a dramatic improvement in the lives of people with disabilities , particularly with respect to access to technology information, with respect to a more open government
. I n that case we all win
. P lease re
- energize yourself and move this very important set of standards forward so that everyone can enjoy the benefits, I thank you for your time and consideration. NEIL MELICK: T hank you Mr. L andrigan
. At this point we will take a 10
- minute break, and the conference call line will stay open so please those on the line stay there. W e will take a 10
- minute break. (Sh ort Recess) NEIL MELICK: I f everybody can take their seats we will go ahead and get started. Okay. I will let R ose get back to her desk and w e will try to see if Jon Gunderson is on the line, and he will be next. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, can y ou please locate Jon Gunderson, and unmute. OPERATOR : Y es. T his line is open. NEIL MELICK: M r. Gunderson, please proceed. JON GUNDERSON: I guess I have some specific
r ecommendations or comments. I guess some of my comments relate to some of the relationship s to the other documents in the WCAG. I t seems like right now , at least from my reading of it, youPage **48** of **77** can either choose WCAG, or the 502, and 503 sections [ in the 2011 ANPRM ]
. S ome of my commentary relates to some of the additions in the 502 sect ions , and maybe some other sections, so that people don't choose to say well, it looks like WCAG is requiring some things that 502 isn't , so I will choose to do the 502 requirements. S o one of my changes would be to modify the requirement s of 502.2.4 , whi ch currently reads as “L abel R elationships ”
. I think there should be a more general relationship requirement. I will send text to the group, but basically, the new requirement would read, "the relationship that a component has for grouping labeling, inst ructions error feedback, alternative descriptions and other programmatic dependency, to other components shall be programmatically determinable. S o to make a more general requirement, another one is I'm concerned about is the lack of language changes. T h is is of particular interest
. I'm calling from the University of Illinois
. H ere a t Illinois, we have a lot of on line language courses, and currently there isn't any language change requirement in Section 508. S ince this will hopefully eventually be ado pted by educational institutions , I feel there is a strong need to have language change information. W e have students who are screen reader users who try to take these courses, but the on line components are inaccessible since language information isn't, change information isn't available in the web documents, and it is impossible for them to figure out when to change from language A, to language B,Page **49** of **77** and back to language A. S o I would like to see in section 502, a language change requirement. A nd that is a part of WCAG, double A WCAG requirement, I would like to see the designers of the software saying rather than doing WCAG, I will do section 502 requirements because I don't have to worry about the language changes. And in that same light, if something like that was going to be added to section 502, I would also like to see the text equivalence requirements of WCAG also represented in the 502 section. T hat text equivalence for graphics, video, and animation should also be programmatically determined so that that would also be viewed as a requirement of meeting 502 especially section 2 requirement. So additional general requirements that I would like to see are in keyboard documentation. W e are using one
-- we have been working with our
-- currently ou r university is switching from analog telephones to voiceover IP telephones
. M any of the software systems that will replace handset telephones are technically keyboard accessible, but the keyboard information is not very discoverable by either users with disabilities, or by people who might be helping them. S o I would like to see stronger requirements for documenting keyboard shortcuts, using operating system s , and platform conventions that are often used to provide information about keyboard shortcuts, a nd various operating systems , o r systems that support menu
-- that users can configure menus with functionality so that they can use the operatingPage **50** of **77** system conventions to find out what the keyboard shortcuts are, and also that for at least frequently used fu nctions that users have the options to configure the keyboard shortcuts for those. And also, I kind of had a concern about people choosing the 502, and 503 requirements instead of WCAG
. 503 talks about making, providing controls to turn on and off capti ons and to provide information about the availability of captions. A gain, I would like to see a 502.2 section requiring that captions and audio descriptions be available. S o that concludes my comments. NEIL MELICK: T hank you very much, Mr. Gunderson. I believe now we are done with the ones on the phone, right? J amal M azrui
. I think he is in the room. TIM CREAGAN : H e may have stepped out. NEIL MELICK: O kay, then not seeing him, we will go with Terry W eaver. I know she is here. TERRY WEAVER : Good morning. I 'm Terry W eaver, and I just want to say, for those of you who are not connected, excuse me, who I have not spoken to before, I am speaking for myself now as a private citizen of 8 days standing. I retired January 3rd. S o basically, I can talk for myself now. (Laughter.) T ERRY WEAVER: But I do want to reiterate my background
. I worked at GSA for the last 5 years on implementation
. GSA hasPage **51** of **77** shared responsibility with the Access Board for providing technical assistance which is why my of fice, myself, and Helen Chamberlain who is here, spent lots of time in the whole revision process standard starting with attending all of the TEITAC meetings, becoming members of and participating in the subcommittees, and then becoming part of the ICT ad hoc committee following. We have produced a lot of rules and resources out there to help people in the agencies to implement 508 successfully. M ost notably, which unfortunately, I understand is down right now, is Section508.gov, which is an informationa l site and training
. O ne of our pride and joys is the Buy A ccessible.gov website which provides information to government procurers o n how to adequately and correctly incorporate requirement s language in their solicitations for ICT related deliverables. These resources are out there, they are free and open to everybody, and we don't restrict them to anyone. O r I should say GSA doesn't restrict them to anyone. My comments are basically all going to be on two of the questions that are posed and I will su bmit these in writing as well. B ut the first one on question 4, is concerning the relationship between the functional performance criteria and the technical provisions
. T he question that is asked is the cost that will be incurred in doing this. W hat I w ant to point out is that what needs to be paid attention to
-- and to the extent that it can be stressed in the final standard becausePage **52** of **77** sometimes people have been known to read things in a gloss
- over fashion
-- is that the technical provisions, or the funct ional p erformance criteria, even today and in the new version, take place or become precedent when you do not fully meet the standards
. S o we are saying in the current day version of it you need to consider the functional performance criteria when you don 't meet the technical provisions
. I'm going to say that most people don't, there is very few products out there that fully meet all of the applicable provisions. So when you look at the difference in cost, I would suggest to you that in today's society , in fact in our tools B uy A ccessible.gov, we always include the functional performance criteria, so the cost to include that requirement should not be too great, we are already requiring that. Secondarily, when you look at what it means to be fully compl iant with the standards, I do think that the biggest question is going to be in looking at the WCAG methodology of determining success because you can be successful but not meeting all. A nd I think that is going to cause some concern issues with the revie w, particularly in the acquisition area because under the acquisition requirements in the FAR , which is the government's body of knowledge that directs the Federal Acquisition Regulation , which directs how we do procurements and which will have to be updat ed to incorporate these new standards, the FAR reflects the language of the law, which says the governmentPage **53** of **77** must purchase the most accessible version
. I f we have WCAG, allowing us to lose that distinction , it could cause some problems in making procurement s. I think that is an issue that has to be resolved under the FAR process. Secondly, I recall question 5, the separate but equal question. And I think that the issues that are inherent with that, is again, the gloss
- over approach. I have spoken to man y government people who believe that they are meeting Section 508 by posting captioned videos on their home web page, the agency's home web page while putting out YouTube based videos that are not captioned or audio described. The rationale for that is th at people can find the same video, I have told them and I would reiterate here , YouTube is not merely an archive library where you download things, it is actually a social media environment
. I ts basis of existence is interaction, so when you talk about fu nctionality, you need to be stressing very clearly that when you look at separate but equal, and I really don't like separate but equal, but if you are looking at it , it has to include all functionality or it is not truly equal to everybody, and I think we need to make sure of that in the new provisions. A nd that is my comments. NEIL MELICK: T hank you very much. O kay. J amal M azrui
. JAMAL MAZRUI. H e will correct me, I'm sure. I 'm sorry if I butchered your name. JAMAL MAZRUI: M y name is JAMAL MAZRU I. A nd I am a federalPage **54** of **77** employee. O n leave today. I 'm coming to you on behalf of a group of federal employees with disabilities called F ed A ccessibility. W e are an informal group of about 30 at this point that started over the
summer , a t this point, mainl y due to our own personal networks. W e are people who are blind or low vision, though we certainly are interested in accessibility for all employees with disabilities. A nd we came together because of a sense of frustration that Section 508 and S ection 50 1 by the way, have not been properly implemented by the Federal Government. O ur work environments have been suffering as a result. M y message to you here today is mainly on these general points rather than the specific provisions. I just want the Board to understand how there is a widespread feeling, not only among employees with disabilities, but people with disabilities in the public that Section 508 has failed. I t has failed to live up to the promise that was envisioned when the law was enacted. I t was at that point believed that it would lead to much greater accessibility within the Federal Government, and because the Federal Government is the largest single employer in the country, and the largest single buyer of goods and services that that could have a dramatic effect on the market as a whole in terms of the design of accessible products and services. We do understand that the Access Board's role is mainly to develop the standards, and at least in the case of Section 508, itPage **55** of **77** doesn't enforce the standards. B ut we just ask that the Board be thinking about what are ways that the standards or the regulations can be made more effective in the reality of their implementation? S o if there is anything that can be done so that those standards are implem ented on a much more consistent basis throughout the Federal Government, we ask the Access Board to do that, whether it is working with the FAR and changing some of the procurement related provisions, or what. A nd just as examples of some of the things th at we encounter regularly, portable document format has become basically the de facto standard for publishing federal documents on the web. A nd yet, still today, it is more common than not that when one reads a PDF with assistive technology, there's signi ficant problems. Problems in the reading order of the document, or of the accuracy whereby one can't necessarily rely on figures that one gets out of a PDF
. O ne would need to have a sighted person double check just because of spurious errors that appear in PDF s. A nd we know that there are guidelines out there about how PDF s are supposed to be designed to be accessible. U nfortunately, those guidelines just have not been followed, so somehow there is a systemic problem that is not being addressed. S imila rly, flash on web pages, there is guidelines for how to implement it accessibly. T hat is the most common form of audio video content, and yet more common than not, when one is using a screen reader, one encounters flash
- based interfaces wherePage **56** of **77** the controls do not have labels. S o you don't have the ability to easily forward, or rewind or pause like other people do. And there are other examples too. S o the main point that we want to make is just please be aware that the regulations were written with the b est intentions. T hey were written quite sensibly, but the implementation has failed over this last decade. A nd so this time around, if there is anything that the Access Board can do to try to make sure that the implementation actually occurs, that would be much better, thank you. NEIL MELICK: T hank you. GARY TALBOT: E xcuse me. C an I ask a quick question
-- a follow
- up question ? I 'm sorry, I shouldn't have let him leave but I want to make sure that I understand, I apologize. H i, my name is Gary Ta lbot, public member. J ust a follow
- up question on PDF s. S o I'm just trying to understand. W as there a problem with the interface between the newer PDF and the accessible format in JAWS, or is there some other problem? I had an employee who happened to be blind that we did a lot of work on posting accessible formats to our website, and things like that. H e was extremely helpful. W e did find some issues, and that is why we continued to post Word documents with PDF s to ensure that people using screen rea ders would be able to use those, but in the latest version of PDF , the screen reader that we had on his machine he said that it was fine. H e didn't need to go back toPage **57** of **77** the Word documents. I was just curious. JAMAL MAZRUI: I think the PDF format it is c apable of being accessible, but the steps required are really burdensome, I mean, one has to be an expert in knowing how to use Acrobat professional, or the Net Centric product to do all of the things that are needed to get it to behave
. F or example, to b e WCAG compliant, for example, so it's commonplace, even when I download PDF s off the Adobe accessibility website, there is no heading structure in the document. S o sighted people see these headings, but I have no ability to navigate by heading with a scr een reader. I f one tries to open a really large PDF , it can take minutes because it goes through the process of trying to add temporary accessibility tags. B efore I can actually start reading the document, and often it is so processor intensive, that I c an't use any other application at that time. A nd sometimes even my computer locks up if I'm trying to open a large PDF
. So yeah, there are multiple problems. I 'm not sure if I have totally addressed your question. GARY TALBOT: N o, you have, that is helpful. S o could it be one of posting, and how the document is posted for you as an accessible document, and then the other issue of once you download that even though you can make it into an accessible document, it is a very difficult task to do that re quires pretty much a hot rod computer to be able to do that.Page **58** of **77** JAMAL MAZRUI: Y es. GARY TALBOT: T hank you very much I apologize for
-- CHRISTOPHER HART: I f I might ask an additional question. A re you -- is it more problematic when you get into documen ts that have tables, or does it occur in just straight word text documents as well? JAMAL MAZRUI: D efinitely adding tables will be more likely to result in accessibility problems. S o yeah, the more complex the Word document, the more likely that things will not translate accessibly when they are turned into a PDF
. But even just straight text, for example, if it is like a newsletter where there might be different columns of text visually, it is just commonplace when one is reading the text version of th at PDF that the sentences get mixed up from different articles because maybe visually they occur on the same line. But they are supposed to be logically separate. S o even with regular documents there are just regular significant problems of accessibility with this format, and just the answer has always been, well, you know, they need to go to the Adobe site and follow these authoring guidelines, and then it will be okay. W ell, I challenge it on two fronts. Even when people follow the guidelines, like I would expect for example Adobe would follow all of the guidelines and yet I still encounter PDF s from their site that have significant problems. But stepping back from that, if it is so difficult to follow those guidelines, and PDF is such a widespread format that everybody allPage **59** of **77** over in agencies is producing, it is not just some central shop that can be experts in accessibility, then there is something inherently wrong with the system , b ecause everybody is not going to be an expert in producing accessible PDF s. GARY TALBOT: I f I could this is Gary Talbot again, public member. J ust one final follow
- up. O n the previous version, I think it was OCR text recognition, where you could take the document and do that, and it was a pull down. W as that
-- is the newest version more difficult to use for you , do you think than the previous versions? A nd the reason I ask is because I agree with you. I have downloaded a couple of things that I assumed were accessible, forwarded them on, and then got hollered at beca use they weren't. A nd I took them down from the accessible
-- from Adobe. S o I know what you mean. JAMAL MAZRUI: T he Adobe reader, so there is two issues. T here is the format, and then there is the reader software, which is usually the default, althou gh there is various things that can read PDF s, most commonly people who use the free Adobe reader. It's, I don't think it is any worse, or better than it has been in the last 10 years. I n fact, it is surprising to me, ever since Adobe reader 6, and we a re now at 10, I have seen no significant improvements in the software. A nd it is just
-- so over the whole lifetime that Section 508 has supposed to have been in effect, I haven't noticed any improvements in the level of the PDF accessibility. S o I'm not
-- IPage **60** of **77** don't think it is worse, but I don't think it is better either. GARY TALBOT: O kay, thank you very much. NEIL MELICK: T hank you. O kay. W e have some time left. W e do have one last speaker but he asked to be last, so do we have anybody else th at would like to, that is not registered to come forward and give testimony? MAT HEW McCOLLOUGH: N eil, may I make a few comments regarding today's public hearing, quick comments? M y name is Mat t McCollough, and I'm a public member. I also work for the D.C. Government within the Office of Disability Rights
. I ’m sort of like the point person of Section 508 for the D.C. Government. T he D.C. Government and the O ffice of the C hief T echnology O ffice r has not been perfect in terms of their accessibility, but there is a sincere commitment in making sure that all people with disabilities within the District of Columbia and other people have access to the D.C. g overnment information and services. T he theme that
-- I had a very vested interest in this particula r topic, because there's that perspective separate but equal, and I don't support it, and I find it quite offensive that some of my colleagues champion that perspective. N ow, what I'm most interested in is in terms of accessibility to documents. I t is pr imarily education. L ike I know Adobe is not a be all in terms of making their documents accessible, but it is all about education and having the advocates, the employees step up and say this is what isPage **61** of **77** going on with this document, and simply start educati ng the employees, their colleagues, their agency
-- that all of us have full
- time jobs, and you may not have all the time in the world to actually do that, but basically, taking the time to simply educate the folks around you, and Title I of the ADA to su pport your rights within the work environment to make sure that you have full access to your -- what is the term I want
-- all of the supports that you need in order to do your job successfully and effectively. W hile I noticed, I appreciate all of the div erse comments made today, and I go back to Jim Tobias's comments. H e really emphasized the technical guides, the information guidelines. T he fact sheets or what have you. I t is really, I see a critical point that even though the technology is advancing, as long as we can keep Section 508 as a living document to use as a baseline of how to operate, and provide those fact sheets, those quick sheets or whatever you call them, I think we will make a world of difference. B ut it is all about communicating and simply keeping those ideas open and simply stepping up for your rights. A ll people and employees with disabilities should have the same access to information. A nd so with that in mind, I do want to extend my great appreciation to the community that have a vested interest and rely on
us -- my outreaching to the American Foundation For the Blind, and the National Federation For the Blind, and the employees with disabilities as well, so they see that we are not there quite yet, and wePage **62** of **77** need to progress furth er. A nd so with that in mind, thank you very much. NEIL MELICK: O kay, Mat t , thanks. W e will get back to the public hearing portion of this, and again, if there is anybody in the audience, or if there is anybody on the conference call that wants to tal k, there is I guess there is a way for them to let us know, even if they are not registered if they want to speak, so at this time, we will open that up for those that have not registered that want to speak. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, can you poll th e on - line people. OPERATOR : I f you want to make a comment, please press star 1. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, queue when ready. OPERATOR : O nce again if you would like to testify, please press star and then 1. NEIL MELICK: W hile we are waiting, ju st I think we had about 60 call e rs on the line even after we took the break so I appreciate all of those that have participated and listened in in part of this
. H earing nobody else at this time, I guess the last one registered is Mike Paciello, if he woul d like to come up. OPERATOR : W e do have a comment. NEIL MELICK: W e have one, okay. M r. Duff Johnson, your line is open. DUFF JOHNSON: I guess I pushed the button when the operatorPage **63** of **77** allowed us to be on the call so I wanted to speak to the PDF subje ct that was
-- that arose earlier. NEIL MELICK: W e need a name if we could, please. DUFF JOHNSON: T his is Duff Johnson, I testified earlier. NEIL MELICK: O kay D uff
. DUFF JOHNSON: I wanted to comment on, there was a couple of questions
. very l egitimate questions about PDF and very legitimate complaints about the status of PDF s , yo u know, it's accessibility, and progress towards achieving that. A nd you know, to a degree, I addressed some of those concerns, not in my testimony but I wanted to me ntion or highlight a couple of things here. B y way of attempting to provide some sort of an answer. A nd really the short version of the answer is the problem with PDF has been for a lack of a specific standard that called out in normative terms how the P DF was supposed to be, what PDF implementation has to be able to do. A nd that is the whole purpose to which ISO 14289 has been developed is to answer that question. But this makes it simple in the sense that you off load to the software developers the re sponsibility of delivering the conformance standards, and you will get, PDF /UA performing files in software, and those files in software will achieve levels of conformance. W hen the question such as how long an application takes to auto tag a large docume nt, it is a little different than whether or not PDF is the rightPage **64** of **77** thing to be done with the PDF
. B ecause the real problem with having t o auto tag a document, is just the agency failed to tag it initially when they posted it. PDF
-- the second point is t o say that there is no alternative for PDF because it handles a real world problem in electronic documents that if nothing else
-- and it is already the accepted means for doing
so. I t includes situations like documents that originate from a collection or a variety of electronic sources. A nd

– here is another example where the mandates have no t only one version of a document, pretty much required as a PDF
. Ascanned page, you know, if you take a scanned page, that is clearly a you know
-- a version of a processed document, if you extract it out to a web page in order to make an accessible version of the scanned page you will of necessity created convergence of the document, and very appropriately noted that is inappropriate. So PDF does these things. I t really does these things in the real world. PDF

/UA is a specific standard that makes it explicit for developers what they have to be able to hit as a target. A s I mentioned in my testimony, large software vendors such as Adobe Systems
– PDF

/UA so there is, you know, there is clearly progress that has to be made, but you know, the tools are at hand and they have been designed to address these concerns, thank you very much. NEIL MELICK: A ll right, thank you very much. M ike, I will nowPage **65** of **77** let you come up. MICHAEL PACIELLO: G ood morning. A nd thank you again for an invitation to be able to speak here before the Access Board. I t is always a privilege to be part of this process. I f it were possible on record to just simply say ditto Jim Tobias, that is p robably what I would do. H e is a good friend and colleague and it was kind of interesting that while we only had a brief moment this morning to talk to each other, that we both are of the same mind
- set and the same things that are of concern to us are on a -- are literally, are of equal form and of equal concern, almost in reference to preference and priority. But I wanted to start off by saying this morning, that I think it is important to commend the Access Board and its staff in particular, because I know Jim and I are well aware of the hard work that has gone into this mandate, which is clearly a very critical mandate, one that again, as Jim referred to earlier, serves as a model. A nd you have fundamentally recognized that model by this revision incl uding the industry standards by reference. I think that was a remarkably good and important change because it emphasizes something that we in technology don't. W e don't want to reinvent the wheel, and we want to adopt the standards that industry at large already recognizes and works with. S o that I thought is something very much to be commended for.Page **66** of **77** I think overall this document is a cleaner, better, or better organized document, but I think Gregg Vanderheiden also raised a concern that I have, and wil l have the next month or so before the CSUN hearings to look at, certainly folks in my technology staff will be doing that. And that is I'm afraid of what is left out, or what was left behind, or what was in the previous version, and the TEITAC recommend ations that were not included. S ome of those points were brought up this morning, so I hope between the transcript and the notes that you have taken, that will go back and revisit them. I also echo both Jim and G regg 's points about the inclusion of the functional performance criteria as mandated technical requirements. This was something that I know Jim and I were concerned about; was something that many of us who were advocates for individuals with disabilities really felt was necessary and important a nd crucial to ensure at bottom line, as a principal, fundamental principle, that whatever the technology is regardless of the platform, that it will be usable as well as accessible to individuals with disabilities. S o I really applaud that effort. I was very glad to learn that it had been included. I think also, it is important to recognize the inclusion of the web content accessibility guidelines level AA compliance, because again, it is an industry standard. I t has been around for a couple of years, 10Page **67** of **77** years of work went into get it to that point, and it is something important that I think we all recognize, more importantly, on an international level, it is a recognized standard, and as one of my folks earlier this morning , Brian Landrigan , indicated almost all of our businesses with industry, and this is what they are looking to do, they are looking at the WCAG compliance for web applications, and web services where we work with them. S o these things are all good in all things to be commended for. D avid and I had a conversation about a month ago. I was down here and he and I were talking, and one of the things that he impressed upon me was that his mind
- set is to move this mandate forward. I realize as member and staff and director, he only has so much that he can influence. B ut I think that what we heard today was that mind
- set reiterated many times and in many forms not the least of which Matthew referred to earlier this notion that we have a living document, a rolling R efresh kind of notion. Te chnology is always going to move forward. W orse, from our perspective, that is from the perspective of individuals with disabilities, it moves faster than we can keep up with, and AT can keep up with. And oftentimes, that is because the technology, the t echnology companies themselves, or those organizations that work on behalf of them, are not privy to what is going on in the labs, or in industry. And I think it is very important that we really think about this process in finding a way to change. T o a d egree, it sounds like people arePage **68** of **77** blaming, or holding the Access Board to a higher standard, if you will, because it has been four years since the advisory committee turn ed over its recommendations, and the process does seem slow. T here is the old saying o f slow is fast, and fast is slow. A nd that is really based on a model of effectiveness that what you do is done right, and done well as opposed to getting something fast for the sake of getting something done. However, what we have done is we have gone beyond at this point the common sense approach, if you will, of what a standard should do, particularly as it relates to people with disabilities. So what I would ask the Access Board while you have your meetings here, is to seriously consider how can we change this process? H ow can we complement this process of creating technology standards, frankly I'm not so sure that it is not any standard as it relates to people with disabilities, whether it is technology, or otherwise. B ut how can we complement th is process, so that we have
a R efresh, and revision process that keeps up with the pace of technology? We are a model. T he European Union, the European C ommission is looking to Section 508 and Section 255 and the provisions there, as a basis for M andate 376. W e can't take this lightly. W e have already heard the WCAG guidelines, we know the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines the A ir C arrier A ccess mandate is looking to the webPage **69** of **77** provisions. W e really need to take this seriously. G et this moving, get it out, put it into an NPRM, and get it before Congress as soon as we possibly can. P lease, don't forget some of the points that you heard that were brought out today, concerns around cognition that are without a doubt, have been left out of these provisions, and were a key theme of TEITAC. K iosk, handheld devices, touch screen interfaces, PDF s, testability, and the whole point of implementation as J amal M azrui just mentioned these are key attributes. I would like to see all of these points considered, put into the draft if we can, but I would like to see that done in a R efresh process that complements the technology push, thank you. HANS VAN WINKLE: C an I ask a question? M r. Paciello , thank you . I had an interesting conversation with Jennifer D exter over the break, and this notion of having been on the Access Board for a while now, we are quite accustom ed to setting a standard and they are typically physical standards so you have to move so far, so many centimeters, or two feet away and we were quite good at that, I think
. T hat has really been our one of our clearer areas of expertise as a B oard , but this notion of technology in the rapid pace, is certainly an entirely different ballgame and I was interested in how you and a number of folks, Mr. Tobias and so forth , have talked about the R efresh possibility, and I'm not so sure that I understand from a regulatory, and a process and a structural way of how we in fact canPage **70** of **77** do that. O ur regulatory process is not designed to do that. S o I guess my q uestion is, how do we go about thinking about that? H ow do we and it is a much , much broader picture than just a standard. I t is an entirely different process. W hat would you recommend? A re there people that have solutions or do we need to workshop thi s with a number of assets -- both government and private sector
-- to figure out how do we in fact design a R efresh? P resumably it is going to require some type of legislation at some point to allow us to do that, because I don't think that we have that c apability right now, so how would you recommend that we find a way to come up with a R efresh process and then translate that into some type of a regulatory change, or legislative change that allows us in fact to do that? MICHAEL PACIELLO: T hank you, Mr. V an W inkle I appreciate that, the first thing you have to do as an Access Board is make the decision to look at and analyze what the process is, what it will take to make the change, and then get whatever political you know, lobbying, and processes that n eed to be done in place to do that. There are several folks here, not including myself, Jim Tobias, other folks that served on TEITAC, individuals who work within some of the federal agencies who are very familiar with the regulatory process, much more s o, you heard earlier about the FAR process because that is also going to come into play. So you know, my first recommendation is make the decision to doPage **71** of **77** something because we are not sure that anything has, and second, feel free, I think Jim and I will be more than happy to help you get things started and move forward from there. V olunteering him, he is probably back there shaking his head. B ut -- CHRISTOPHER HART: M r. P aciello , what guidelines would you be supportive of, or are you suggesting that in reviewing the final rule, that we publish a standard of when we will refresh the rules in the final rulemaking, or how else would you suggest that the Board communicate its planned R efresh cycle? MICHAEL PACIELLO: W ell, you can always tweet it. B ut -- (Laughter.) CHRISTOPHER HART: I don't even know how. MICHAEL PACIELLO: I can help you do that, so I will tell you that I can do that, this session has already been tweeted out on social network, so, you know, well, you know
. M r. H art, you touch upon the key thing here which is communication, communication here goes in many different avenues, into many different constituencies, if you will. Communicating with the public, certainly, communicating with industry is absolutely critical. C ommunicating to those that are involved in government, politicians, and legislation, is equally critical; to keep this out in the forefront, in the lime light, so that it doesn't lose the zeal that is intended to be behind it to push it forward, and get things done.Page **72** of **77** NE IL MELICK: I f I could, for the Board members, some of them are new, but this is a R efresh. I just wanted to remind you. A nd they are talking about process. T his is what we are doing right now, with 508 and 255 is a R efresh and it has been over 5
- and
- a - half years. So the process needs to be looked at and I think we have had those discussions and it was in our strategic plan, so we need to address those kinds of concerns, because it is a long time coming. Mr. Tobi a s -- JIM TOBIAS: I 'm not a lawyer I'm not a legislative person, screen reader or interpreter, and somebody maybe can correct me, but I think the statute would permit you to refresh not all of the provisions at the same time. I think it says periodically, within two years of the passage, or s omething like that, and then periodically after that, so I don't think that there is a statutory requirement that you do them all at once. S o if you are going to commit, and I think Mike is right, the first thing is to decide what
-- how it is that you wa nt to handle this reality, if you do want to do a rolling R efresh, you have a couple of problems that follow on that. O ne is, deciding what are you going to refresh when. S o you know, somebody says we need better guidance on touch screens, okay, that is probably already you have already received things and you haven't even finished this R efresh, right. S o how do you make that decision? Y ou know, whether to go with that or not, and as I suggested earlier, I think you have two options, one isPage **73** of **77** to just deve lop and publish better guidance materials using the current provisions so that you don't have to do all of that you know, advisory committee, and what have you. S o you just basically are interpreting either the functional permanence criteria, or a technic al provision in the light of the new technology, so that is the easy and very valuable way. B ut then there are times where, and I think touch screens are an example and I think we had someone else I think , David P orter commented on it, it really is a new enough technology that you are going to need to put some technical provisions in place. A nd so you know, that is going to be your job. Y ou have a committee, or a subcommittee, I guess, the
- what is it called, the scout, or frontier ....? NEIL MELICK: “ F rontier ”
. JIM TOBIAS: “ Frontier ” , I k new it was something “Ol d W est ”. T he F rontier committee is a perfect venue for you to
-- begin to identify some of these emerging technology issues and drive that process, even you know, develop some guidelines inter nally for when it is new provisions and when it is just guidance material. S o I think you have the power to do it, the freedom to do it, I don't think that it is administratively a challenge. I t is technologically necessary. I don't see any downside to committing to some form of a rolling R efresh. NEIL MELICK: A nd that other issue that comes into play, is the time, and staff resources. W e appreciate those comments, believe
me. M ost of us on the Board, the new ones and those that have beenPage **74** of **77** here for a while, like Gary, and I have only been here four, but we understand this, we feel it. W e sit in our meetings and we wonder why it can't take place, and there is just you know, a certain amount of time
. I 'm visually impaired, so believe me, the technolog y side is something very you know, dear to me, and I am heavily involved with, and have been involved with this since the TEITAC turned it over, but there's a lot of other standards and guidelines that we deal with, and I just sometimes I'm hearing this, a nd I can just feel the anguish in the staff as they say oh, my gosh when are we going to find the time. These are important issues and we appreciate the comments that have been made today, we appreciate the information. W e are going to take that, and we are going to take all of the comments and look at it as hopefully I will be appointed and finish out this, and not have somebody fresh come in come in here and do this, but we have a lot to look at. I was hoping that this was going to be a Notice of Publi c Rulemaking and not an A dvance, but with the complete change that we did and the information that we got through the last comments of the ANPRM, we realized that we had to go back and ask additional questions, and then seek guidance, especially since we a re hearing things today like certain things may have been missed when we did the consolidation of chapters and so forth. S o I think it was necessary and I appreciate the comment about fast is slow, because we are actually trying to
-- or slow is fast beca use we are trying to do it right.Page **75** of **77** Again, I appreciate all of those who participated today
. I think our time is running short
. I don't know if there is anybody else that has not registered, or have not already spoken that wants to make any comments, we o pen that up one more time. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, can you poll the listeners, please? OPERATOR : A nyone if anyone would like to make a comment, please press star and then 1. P ress star and then 1, we do have one from Mr. David porter, the line is open
-- oh, he just disconnected, I'm sorry. I f anyone would like to make a comment, please press star and then 1. J on Gunderson, your line is open. NEIL MELICK: G o ahead, JON. JON GUNDERSON: I guess one of my long
- standing concerns about docum ents that try to be all
- inclusive, is that you run into the problem of finding people who can participate and understand them. You know, I like the idea of looking at specific products or types of products. O ne of the things that made the WCAG 2.0 proces s so long, is that people wanted a document that would cover a wide range and even future technologies. A nd so that requires another abstraction, and I think that also excludes people because people may say well, I know about web pages or I may know about flash or Adobe PDF , but I don't know about these other technologies and they are talking about all of these other things so I don't know what I can contribute. S o IPage **76** of **77** would encourage the Board if they are looking at it redefining the process, looking at te chnologies more individually, because it might not only produce better requirements for those technologies, but it may allow people to participate who wouldn't participate in more general guidelines. F or example, when you talk about an accessible bathroom , you know, you don't want just general standards that work in a bus, in a train, and in a building. Y ou know. T he building standards have different standards for all of those different places. So I do
-- and as technology changes, you know, and technol ogy becomes adopted, people can say you know, well these are being used in the workplace, let's bring together the people with the accessibility problems that people building those technologies, and the accessibility experts to come up with solutions for t hose technologies that that industry would understand. S o I just have that comment , i f the Access Board is looking at revising the process. T hank you. NEIL MELICK: T hank you very much. S o is there anybody else? ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, is the re anybody else? OPERATOR : A nyone would like to make a comment? NEIL MELICK: H earing none, we will close this hearing
. I again want to thank everybody for your participation. A gain, we still are open for comments and we are looking forward to those that have spoken today to submit the written documents. W e will be in San Diego, at the CSUN conference March 1st for the second hearing
.Page **77** of **77** P lease, everybody the more comments that we get, the more information that we can share and communicate with each o ther, the better our standard guideline will be. S o again, I want to thank all of those who are here today. ROSE MARIE BUNALES: O perator, this is Rose Marie, US Access Board, we are done, thank you for your assistance, close the line.