Source: https://www.independentliving.org/docs4/waddell99.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:26:15+00:00

Document:
The conference is timely because there are significant law and policy issues impacting the community of people with disabilities in their ability to overcome digital barriers and participate in the digital economy. The growth and success of the emerging digital economy requires that attention be paid to the mechanism for enabling dynamic participation. Unless the civil rights of America’s 54 million  people with disabilities are addressed during this period of rapid, technological development, the community will be locked out from participation on the basis of disability and the technological world will not be enriched by their diverse contributions.
As we examine the civil rights requirements for access and fairness, note the additional benefits that accrue: by mainstreaming the functionality found in the assistive computer arena into the architecture of our digital economy, we will expand technological innovations and develop creative solutions. By embracing our individual differences, the collective community receives greater benefits than that achieved through the segregation and isolation of people with disabilities.
Because the digital economy by definition requires a dynamic Internet environment, the very functionality required by the disability community can satisfy this dynamic requirement for web-based transactions. Accessible web design enables dynamic web sites- whether or not it is for business transactions, voting or long-distance learning. In addition, many benefits are emerging in the application of accessible web design. Accessible web design enables CD and videotapes to be archived through captioning. Accessible web design also enables electronic textbooks to be accessible. Even illiterate populations can access the Internet by listening to screen readers audibly reading the web.
And lastly, web accessibility enables low technology to access high technology. People with slow modems and low bandwidth can access the electronic content of the web. Even consumers without state of the art computer equipment or who only have a telephone, can participate in an accessible Internet environment using a telephone browser.
The more the marketplace is transformed into a digital economy, the more obvious it is to the community of people with disabilities that they cannot participate due to inaccessible web design.  It is true that on a case by case basis computer stations with assistive computer technology can be tailored to the particular needs of people with disabilities. But we have not fully addressed the linkage of the individual with the Internet community as a whole. Rapid changes in the Internet environment require that we examine not only the end-user workstation needs but also the technology barriers emerging beyond the computer workstation. End-users utilizing assistive computer technology cannot conduct web transactions if the Internet environment does not accommodate the functionality needs of accessible design. Unless this problem is addressed, expenditures on infrastructure and technology accommodations will be wasted if attention is not paid to the end-user locked out of the Internet due to inaccessible design.
According to the National Council on Disability , computers and the Internet are used by a significant number of people with disabilities in America.  But because the Internet environment is inaccessible, it is difficult to count the number of people with disabilities who would like to participate but cannot because of the barriers to access. Counting users on the Internet is like counting the number of people using wheelchairs who are inside an inaccessible building. It was once thought that since no wheelchair users were in the building, ramps were not needed.
The transformation of the Internet from a text-based medium to a robust multi-media environment has created a crisis – a growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities. Previously, people with visual disabilities were able to access the Internet with their screen readers audibly reading aloud the text on a web page. Today, graphical web pages are a barrier if they do not incorporate accessible web design.
The problem for screen readers is that inaccessible web page design either hides the text within images, frames, applets or animated gifs or renders the text unintelligently in table, columnar, or portable document format (pdf). Even on-line forms are inaccessible especially when designed to prevent keyboard navigation and input. Whether the form is posted for school or event registration or on-line banking or shopping transactions, people with visual and/or mobility disabilities are faced with a significant barrier to participation.
But the impact is not limited to people with visual and mobility disabilities. People with specific learning disabilities are also finding that they can no longer access web pages audibly with screen readers. Even people with cognitive disabilities are becoming lost due to the absence of navigation elements at web sites. Moreover, people with hearing disabilities cannot access the content of audio streaming and video clips posted on the Internet due to the absence of captioning.
The digital divide in web page transactions and the Internet environment has bred a host of additional problems for people with disabilities. For example, commercial web-authoring applications lack access tool kits for webmasters to correct accessible web design problems. In fact, many current web-authoring tools on the market make it extremely difficult to even design an accessible web page. The scarcity of tools also contributes to the lack of education among programmers and web authors on why and how to code an accessible web page. And if the webmaster herself is a person with a disability, she will also find a lack of web authoring applications that she can utilize. This is especially true for webmasters with mobility disabilities requiring voice, eye tracking or keyboard input/output features in web authoring applications.
Whether the digital barrier is the inaccessible design of Internet/Intranet web sites, Internet Service Provider “portals,” incompatible browsers, or inaccessible web-based platforms for on-line business, the trend is growing and must be addressed at the infancy of the digital economy. Already, exciting electronic and information technology features are emerging in the areas of information appliances, real-time conference participation, audio-streaming, telephone voice browsers, search engines, news groups, chat rooms and 3-D imaging. Unless functionality solutions for accessibility are addressed today, the state of the digital divide tomorrow may be impossible to overcome.
Although each of these statutes, their amendments and regulations deserve an extended discussion as to the civil right protections impacting electronic and information technology, this paper is limited to highlighting some of the significant legal issues that can inform our policy impacting people with disabilities.
First, as of this writing there have been no legal challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) on the issue of inaccessible web pages and the Internet environment. Nevertheless, attention is being paid to the application of the ADA to inaccessible web design because of the scope and impact of this statute protecting people with disabilities from discrimination in their access to employment and commerce.
Under the rationale of “effective communication,” the USDOJ Letter states that ADA Titles II and III require state and local governments and the business sector to provide effective communication whenever they communicate through the Internet. The effective communication rule applies to covered entities using the Internet for communication regarding their programs, goods or services since they must be prepared to offer those communications via an accessible medium.
Specifically addressing the needs of people with visual disabilities, the USDOJ Letter points out that providing a text format rather than a graphical format assures accessibility to the Internet for individuals using screen readers. Without special coding a text browser will only display the word “image” when it reads a graphic image. Moreover, if the graphic is essential to navigating the site (such as a navigational button or arrow) or if it imparts vital information (such as a table or image map) the user can get stuck and not be able to move or understand the information provided.
Legal challenges are anticipated  amid the growing avalanche of ADA administrative complaint filings that have yet to reach the courts. In fact, a number of web site complaints have quietly settled with the covered entities promising to retrofit their web sites for accessible design. Examples of the types of ADA complaints anticipated include: employees requiring accessible intranet/internet environment as a reasonable accommodation under ADA Title I; employees and students requiring access to long-distance learning courses; citizens requiring access to internet kiosks for voting or participating in business or governmental transactions; or consumers requiring access to electronic textbooks and the web-based environment.
Lastly, for the last four years there have been significant legal developments coming out of the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, in their OCR Letters of Resolution against higher education institutions in the State of California.
Access to the learning environment is a critical, front-line issue requiring an immediate resolution. For example, library reference services are being transformed by the efficiency of Internet access to information systems and search engines. Professors are teaching long-distance learning courses over the Internet and even if a student is physically in class, homework assignments and resources are being posted on classroom web pages. Yet, even if a library terminal has assistive computer technology installed for students or visitors with disabilities, Internet research is not possible with inaccessible web page design.
Of particular interest is the analogy OCR draws between the rationale for bringing an existing building up to code for access and the purchase of new technology for information systems. For example, buildings built prior to access laws are governed by “program access” requirements and remodeling triggers the requirement to install certain accessible architectural features.
Similarly, the effective communication requirement according to OCR imposes a duty to solve barriers to information access that the entity’s purchasing choices create. Whenever existing technology is “upgraded” by a new technology feature, it is important to ensure that the new technology either improves accessibility or is compatible with existing assistive computer technology.  For example, web-authoring software programs that erect barriers in their coding of web pages fall under this scrutiny.
Lastly, OCR states that when an entity selects software programs and/or hardware equipment not adaptable for people with disabilities, “the subsequent substantial expense of providing access is not generally regarded as an undue burden when such cost could have been significantly reduced by considering the issue of accessibility at the time of the initial selection.”  Therefore all technology improvements must take into account the removal of barriers and ensure that new barriers to access do not occur. Covered entities preparing to retrofit their web sites need to be aware of this requirement.
3. OCR Letter Docket No. 09-97-6001 (January 22, 1998): http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/ocrsurltr.html.
Just as the removal of architectural barriers requires a plan for implementation, the removal of technological or digital barriers in programs and services requires a comprehensive institutional plan impacting every campus office.
4. OCR Letter Docket No. 09-99-2041 (April 20, 1999): http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/lbeach.htm.
As a result, the mainstreaming of students with disabilities has created the need for appropriate technology tools for access to the learning environment. And as students with disabilities move into the workforce as employees, employers or consumers, accessible web design and an accessible internet platform remains a significant issue to be addressed in the digital economy. In other words, overcoming barriers in the digital economy requires appropriate policies, technology tools and education for accessible system design and implementation.
We have seen how people with disabilities are locked out of the digital economy web environment due to the lack of accessible design. The digital divide will continue to expand if this issue is not addressed in our research, education and outreach. As the rapid development of new web applications continues, it is necessary to ensure that new barriers are not erected to effective communication and commerce.
This section briefly highlights some of the additional problems currently expanding the digital divide: Internet Services Providers, Internet voting, accessible system design, Internet kiosks, smart cards, electronic textbooks, long-distance learning, and consumer household appliances.
According to a recent study by the American Foundation for the Blind, there are significant accessibility issues to consider when a consumer determines whether or not to utilize on-line services or Internet Service Providers. Although America Online is one of the most popular services for accessing the Internet, it is currently not a good choice for consumers who are blind. Expert screen reader users find it extremely difficult to navigate because of its nonstandard controls (buttons and icons) and lack of keyboard commands.
As government agencies look to the Internet as an efficient way to conduct elections, it is important to ensure that web pages utilized for voting do not contain accessibility barriers. For example, currently a number of Fortune 500 companies provide Internet voting as an option for shareholder participation at annual or special business meetings and are unaware that there are accessibility barriers at their web sites. This problem should be a reminder for governments that Internet voting for local, state or national elections requires accessible web design to prevent the disfranchisement of people with disabilities.
As governmental entities and businesses employ policies to satisfy ADA Title II or ADA Title I requirements, a systemic review similar to the Year 2K problem should be underway to remove accessible system design barriers impacting employees and consumers. For example, designers of statewide or agency computer systems should be addressing the impact of their design ‘upgrade’ on current employees using assistive computer technology. Employees with disabilities should not be suddenly losing their ability to do their job because of this lack of planning.
Even if a vendor has a package with built-in accessibility features, it is important that people with disabilities are involved in the development of the product as well as in the procurement of the product. By including this knowledge on the team, system planning can anticipate and address compatibility, accessibility and implementation issues. Examples of some of the problematic issues include: the transfer of human resources/payroll/product inventory databases to particular intranet environment formats not friendly to screenreader access or keyboard navigation; the intranet ‘upgrade’ to database search engine capability when the search engine itself is not accessible to screenreaders; or the inaccessible design of a web-based vendor platform for conducting on-line business. Research is needed on how to best incorporate difference and choice to address this growing problem. The author has received numerous calls from state and business entities across the nation seeking solutions after a system upgrade “bumped” an employee from the workplace.
Internet kiosks and information technology machines (ITM) are appearing in the marketplace without ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities. Whether the barrier is a touch screen feature or other inaccessible element, specific guidelines are needed for the industry to address functional requirements. The Access Board has been researching the accessibility of ITM’s and a draft copy of their final report can be accessed from their web site at http://www.access-board.gov .
Smart cards, whether they are in the shape of credit cards, keys or rings, or demand vision to access digital displays of random password entry numbers for operation, require accessible design considerations. As businesses and governmental agencies increase their investment in these products for security or employee identification reasons, the number of consumers and employees impacted by the lack of accessible design will increase. Solutions are needed to address this problem.
Currently the State of Texas Education Code  requires the Texas Education Agency to develop a study project to determine the costs and benefits of using computer networks, including the Internet in public schools. The issues to be studied include electronic delivery of textbooks and supplement updates as well as the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of producing electronic textbooks for students with disabilities.
Establish an advisory committee to develop guidelines for designing accessible, interactive electronic instructional materials including simulations.
Fund a study of the costs for developing accessible electronic textbooks  as well as two demonstration projects for developing two interactive electronic textbooks: one electronic textbook to be CD-ROM-based that students with disabilities can use without assistive technology devices; the other an interactive accessible Internet-based or Intranet-based textbook that students with disabilities can use without assistive technology devices.
Require beginning in the year 2003 all CD-ROM textbooks or materials adopted by the State Board of Education comply with the basic accessibility requirements contained in the report.
Require all Internet-based or Intranet-based textbooks adopted by the State Board of Education comply with the accessibility guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium.
Require that all materials purchased by Texas public schools for preparing students to take standardized and college entrance examinations be accessible to students with disabilities.
Likewise, in the State of California, Assembly Bill 422  requires publishers of textbooks and instructional materials to provide an electronic version for people with disabilities if the material is required as part of a course or study in a community college, the California State University or the University of California. A second bill, Assembly Bill 609 , addresses the needs of grades kindergarten through twelve and includes the requirement that publishers of instructional materials provide the state, at no cost, computer files or electronic versions of the instructional material. Lastly, a third bill, Assembly Bill 395 , provides conformity with the IDEA for special education programs and requires publishers and manufacturers to provide instructional materials to the state in electronic format compatible with Braille translation and speech synthesis software.
The efforts in Texas and California are timely and if successful, then another barrier in the digital divide will fall.
Digital components with touch screen or flat screen displays are bringing common household appliances into the digital age. Unfortunately, consumers with disabilities are finding they cannot use these appliances. Whereas household appliance switches and knob settings can be Brailled so that people with visual disabilities can operate the appliances, this solution is not available for appliances utilizing digital operational displays. Some of the common household appliances converting to a digital operation display include stoves, microwaves, dishwashing machines, and clothes washing/drying machines.
This section highlights two particular efforts underway to address the problems of barriers in web page design and the Internet environment: City of San Jose, California, web accessibility effort and the World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative. It also highlights some of the emerging benefits that extend beyond the community of people with disabilities.
As the ADA Compliance Officer for the City of San Jose, the author participated on an Internet Home Page Team from October 1995 through June 1996. Our team purpose statement was “to lay a foundation including the establishment of standards, goals and guidelines for the City of San Jose’s Internet World Wide Web Pages.” Of particular concern was the filing of an ADA administrative complaint against the City of San Jose by a blind City Commissioner. The Commissioner complained that she was unable to access City Council documents as part of her work in advising City Council because the documents were posted in an inaccessible format, ie. portable document format (pdf).
By June 1996, the City of San Jose Web Page Disability Access Design Standard was developed in response to the monitoring of ADA Internet complaints and the need to incorporate City ADA implementation policies.  By integrating the requirements of the ADA and applying Universal design principles, we have ensured the widest public access to City electronic government information and services.  Currently these standards are being incorporated into our web site and are subject to change as technology advances to solve digital barriers and integrate access tool kits in web-authoring tools.
A robust and strong digital economy requires the removal of barriers through the deployment of accessible design elements in our computer, information technology and communications. By directing our research and policy directives to address these problems, we will overcome the digital divide and ensure full participation in the global digital economy.
 National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, “Who Needs Web Site Accessibility?” The Research Exchange 3, no. 3 (1998): 1-5. http://www.ncddr.org/researchexchange/ According to this article, estimates of the total number of Americans vary according to the criteria used. The figure of 43 million was stated in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994)). Another figure of 36.1 million was proposed by the Disability Statistics Rehabilitation Research and Training Center based on data from the 1990 National Health Interview Survey and additional sources. The National Council on Disability Bulletin (September 1997) cited the figure of 54 million.
 Lessig, Lawrence, “Cyber-Governance,” CPSR Newsletter - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility 16, no. 4, (Fall, 1998) pp. 1,4.
 Pub. L. No. 93-112 § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994). Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates reasonable accommodation and least restrictive environments in federally funded employment and higher education; requires assistive technology and services to people with disabilities.
 Pub. L. No. 99-506, 100 Stat. 1807 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 716-717, 794d, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-7 (1994) requiring states to include assistive technology services in plans for clients with disabilities and mandates equal access to all electronic equipment in federal workplaces.
 Pub. L. No. 100-407, 102 Stat. 1044 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 2201-2288 (Supp. 1996)) Congress amended this statute in 1994: Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Amerndments of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-218, 108 Stat. 50 (Supp. II 1996)(codified in 29 U.S.C. § 2201 note and in various sections of 29 U. S.C.) It is interesting to note that the statute recognized a growing digital divide: “Many individuals with disabilities cannot access existing telecommunications and information technologies and are at risk of not being able to access developing technologies. The failure of Federal and State governments, hardware manufacturers, software designers, information systems managers, and telecommunications service providers to account for the specific needs of individuals with disabilities results in the exclusion of such individuals from the use of telecommunications and information technologies and results in unnecessary costs associated with the retrofitting of devices and product services.” 29 U.S.C. § 2201(a)(7)(Supp.II 1996).
 Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994). The ADA extends sections 503, 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to all qualified individuals with disabilities.
 Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1103(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 1400 (1994)) extending assistive technology devices and services definition to education.
 Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1461 (1994)) extending reasonable accommodation and least restrictive environment provision of the Rehabilitation Act to ages five through twenty-one in education; provides for assistive technology to play a significant role in access to educational programs.
 Pub. L. No. 99-457, 100 Stat. 1145 (1986)(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1485 (1994)) extending EAHC to infants and children up to five years and expanding provisions on education-related assistive technology.
 Pub. L. No. 104-107, 110 Stat. 2394, 2416 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997, adding new section 121 to Title 17 U.S. Code) providing exemption from copyright infringement for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other people with disabilities.
 Pub. L. No. 105-17 Recently re-authorized and strengthened as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
 Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Department of Justice, letter to Tom Harkin, U. S. Senate, re application of the ADA to “web pages” on the Internet, September 9, 1996, 10 NDLR 240.
 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA, p.111.
 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303; 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
 See Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998).
 See March 9, 1999 letter from Ralph Black, General Counsel for the California Community Colleges to Paul Grossman, Chief Regional Attorney, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights re Case Docket No 09-97-6001 (hereinafter cited as OCR Letter dated 3/9/99).
 OCR Letter Docket No. 09-99-2041 dated April 20, 1999 from Robert E. Scott, Team Leader, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, p. 2.
 Crista L. Carl and Jay D. Leventhal, “Accessing On-Line Services with Synthetic Speech: America Online, CompuServe, and Internet Service Providers,” Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, (New York: American Foundation for the Blind,1998) 92, no. 8, pp. 545-551.
 Section 32.037 of the Texas Education Code was legislated by Senate Bill 294 and enacted by the 75th Texas Legislature.
 The Texas Education Code defines electronic textbook as “computer software, interactive videodisc, magnetic media, CD-ROM, computer courseware, online services, an electronic medium, or other means of conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means.” Section 31.001(1). This definition does not address the accessibility issues of electronic textbook content and the method of presentation of that content.
 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html for status of California Assembly Bill 422.
 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html for status of California Assembly Bill 609.
 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html for status of California Assembly Bill 395.
 OCR Letter dated 1/22/98, p. 4. See http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/ocrsurltr.html . One particular distance education resource referenced in the OCR letter was the University of Toronto, Canada effort at http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/rd/library/papers/accspe.html Recently, at a March 1999 California State University at Northridge (CSUN) “Technology of Persons with Disabilities” conference, an interesting project paper was presented entitled “Adding Feeling, Sound and Equal Access to Distance Education” by Jutta Treviranus of the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto.
 OCR Letter dated 3/9/99, p. 4.
 See http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/oaacc/disacces.html for further detail on these standards for City webmasters and consultants. These standards are derived from ADA policies and procedures found in the City of San Jose ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, the ADA statute itself, case law, regulations, ADA Technical Assistance Manuals and other agency interpretive tools. ADA policies include: 1) the ADA Alternate Document Format Notice 2) the ADA Public Notice for requesting accommodations for access to public meetings and events 3) the third party contractor ADA compliance requirement 4) the City of San Jose ADA Title II complaint process for citizens 4) the ongoing duty to remove barriers in access to our City programs, services and facilities and 5) the ADA requirement that people with disabilities, such as the City Disability Advisory Commission, are consulted when developing policies, programs or services impacting their community.
 Ideally, a web site should display the same information on the web page for all visitors and should not require the maintenance of a separate text-only site. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a higher cost for maintaining parallel web sites because webmasters tend to update the graphical version and not the text-only version.
 Screenreaders cannot audibly read out loud the text or links embedded within graphics. This is also true for screenreaders encountering a PDF document. Visitors to web sites with slow modems have also found that they can quickly download a web site utilizing Alt-tags by turning off their graphics.
 On-line forms that enable keyboard navigation and input are helpful but can be difficult to read by certain text browsers. A good customer service strategy is to provide an email or voice/TTY phone number as an alternative means of communication.
 Only by coincidence was the WAI launch made in the only local governmental jurisdiction that had adopted minimal web accessibility standards. In fact, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Santa Clara had adopted the City of San Jose web accessibility standard the previous month in March, 1997.
 According to O’Reilly, “whether or not open-source technologies succeed as packaged products, their greatest economic contribution may be the new services that they enable.” Ibid., p 34.
 Shapiro and Varian, Information Rules, pp. 256, 257.

References: § 504
 § 794
 § 2201
 § 2201
 § 2201
 § 36
 § 35