| Home | Previous | Contents | Next |
Spelling out 'accessible' standards
From Federal Computer Week - February 21, 2000 - page 45
Rules will tell agencies how to adapt IT for disabled workers
BY William Matthews
To Doug Wakefield, a picture is not worth a thousand words. A few words or a
phrase are much more valuable.
"I'm totally blind," Wakefield explained. And although his computer is
equipped to translate what is on the screen into Braille or read text with a
voice synthesizer, the computer is stymied when it encounters a picture.
"There is no technology out there that can understand a picture," said
Wakefield, who is an information technology accessibility specialist.
The result frequently is frustration, even for Wakefield, who is an expert in
how technology can be adapted for use by people with disabilities. But as the
federal government's lead staff member developing standards for the
accessibility of information technology used by the government, Wakefield
said he is optimistic that change is coming.
Wakefield's employer, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, also known as the Access Board, is developing new standards
for federal agencies to follow when they develop, buy or maintain a vast
array of electronic equipment.
Starting Aug. 7, the standards are expected to affect most government
purchases of computers, keyboards, software, fax machines, photocopiers,
kiosk terminals, automatic teller machines, telecommunications equipment and
any other hardware or software used for sending, receiving, storing or using
information.
Some of those standards will address the use of images, which increasingly
are the language of IT. From the ship's wheel of Netscape Communications
Corp.'s Navigator to America Online's red-flagged mailbox, icons have largely
replaced words in computer programs and on the Internet.
When a blind person's computer screen reader encounters pictures or icons in
software, it often can identify them only as "buttons?" Instead of useful
program functions that sighted users understand, a blind user knows only that
the screen is full of buttons. "What in God's name do all these buttons do?"
Wakefield asked.
The problem can be easily avoided. At the program code level, icons and
pictures have text descriptions attached. Instead of a vague description such
as "button one," icons could be labeled "table of contents" or "delete file"
or "create a document?' That way, a screen reader could tell a blind user
each button's function.
So why haven't software producers and World Wide Web page designers adopted
the practice?
"It's a marketing thing," Wakefield said. Companies do not believe there is
enough of a market to make it financially worthwhile to write software and
design Web pages that are accessible by the disabled.
The new standards that Wakefield and the Access Board are working on will
update Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They are being reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget and are expected to be made public by
early March.
The rules already are making some technology companies nervous. Lawyers for
the Information Technology Association of America worry that the standards
may restrict competition, require agencies to buy products that many
companies do not produce and countermand existing government requirements
that agencies buy commercially available products.
The ITAA also is concerned about the impact of a provision that lets
individuals take legal action against agencies that fail to comply with
requirements.
Generally, the standards will require that IT be accessible to people with
visual, hearing, physical, speech, learning and cognitive disabilities,
according to the Access Board.
That means equipment will have to be built so that disabled people can
locate, identify and operate equipment controls and get access to the
information the equipment provides. Providing equipment and software usable
by disabled people generally costs between $500 and $2,000 per person,
Wakefield said.
Industry officials worry that if they are unable to produce technology that
meets the needs of people with disabilities, they may be unable to sell to
the federal government.
High on the list of concerns is how to make government Web sites comply with
the new standards.
Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.) said Feb. 9th that government Web pages may have
to undergo extensive changes. Audio files may have to accompany text and
video files may have to be captioned. Use of color to convey information may
be restricted. And information may have to be presented so it is compatible
with Braille and speech synthesis devices. Touch screens, moving text and
animation may be prohibited, Canady said.
But Wakefield and other experts say Web page compliance is not so difficult.
"You can fix one literally overnight, it's that easy,"Wakefield said.
"Web accessibility solutions are generally inexpensive and easy to
implement," said Judy Brewer, director of the Web Accessibility Initiative of
the World Wide Web Consortium. Many Web operators are moving in that
direction already as they try to make sites accessible to mobile phones,
palmtop devices, TV sets, dashboard computers and other emerging
technologies.
But waiting for the technology marketplace alone to solve accessibility
problems won't work, she said. Accessibility requirements have been on the
books since 1986, yet industry has ignored them and government has not
enforced them, Brewer said.
Stronger standards and tougher enforcement are necessary to force industry to
produce equipment and software that disabled people can use, Wakefield said.
"Hopefully, the new standards will create a market for it. The government is
a pretty big gorilla in the marketplace, and if this is what the government
wants to buy, hopefully industry will produce it."
USER-FRIENDLY FOR ALL
To meet accessibility requirements for disabled workers, federal agencies may
be required to provide hardware and software, such as:
Devices that convert computer screen contents to Braille or audio.
Programs that can be run using touch screens and simplified keyboards.
Software that responds to speech commands.
Magnified screens for people with poor vision.
Software that minimizes cognitive and memory requirements.
Equipment usable by people in wheelchairs.
Adjustable audio for use by hearing impaired.
Visual and tactile data presentations synchronized with audio output.
Screens with minimal flicker for people with photosensitive epilepsy.
Source: Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee final
report
Caption: Doug Wakefield, an information technology accessibility specialist
at the Access Board.
| Home | Previous | Contents | Next |