Congress awarded students with disabilities extra protections in recent years. Now, the U.S. Department of Education is stepping up its efforts to ensure that schools are following the new rules.

In a letter sent this week to school districts and state education leaders, officials at the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights (DOE-OCR) took pains to spell out the obligations schools have under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADA).

Though the ADA update took effect three years ago, the correspondence suggests that many schools may not be abiding by it. In light of this, federal officials are offering technical guidance and say that they will be upping their enforcement efforts.

Read the rest of the AlphaOne announcement

Read the Dear Colleague Letter from DOE-OCR

The U.S. Access Board recently held a public hearing on a revised draft of updated requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act.

The Board will hold a second hearing March 1 at the CSUN Conference in San Diego. The hearing will be open to the general public and will not be limited to those registered for the conference.

Full story…

The Board conducted a public hearing January 11 on a revised draft of updated requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act. Over a dozen people provided comments at the hearing, including representatives from advocacy groups, industry, and government.

Many speakers expressed support for structural changes made by the Board to streamline the rule and simplify requirements. They also endorsed the incorporation of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG) by direct reference to eliminate redundancy and promote greater harmonization. Some called attention to specific sections of the draft that should be clarified as a result of the rule’s reorganization or the replacement of requirements with the WCAG reference.

Commenters voiced concern over the timeframe to complete this update, particularly in view of the increasing speed of technological change and innovation. They urged the Board to explore options for a more timely process to refresh the ICT requirements on a continuing or rolling basis to keep pace with the ever-changing and newly emerging technologies of a dynamic market. Delays in keeping the requirements regularly updated, it was argued, impede industry compliance and hamper the incorporation of accessibility into new products.

Participants urged the Board to revise the rule to cover certain technologies or barriers to access. These recommendations addressed self-service machines and kiosks, which are becoming more prevalent, the growing market of gesture-based interfaces, such as touch screens, the emerging trend in digital or biometric identification as an alternative to password protection, hand held devices and access for people with limited dexterity, refreshable braille, and access for people with cognitive disabilities. In addition, recommendations were made to improve coverage of products with closed functionality, communication device software, web authoring tools, and technologies involving multiple languages, such as those used in foreign language instruction or translation.

Some speakers called attention to failures in the implementation of section 508 resulting in access issues for members of the public and federal employees with disabilities. Comments pointed to the importance of supplementary technical assistance materials, including answers to frequently asked questions, to improve implementation and compliance. It was also recommended that efforts be made to make the functional performance criteria of the rule testable to help validate compliance.

A transcript of the hearing will be posted to the rulemaking docket on the www.regulations.gov website in coming weeks. The Board will hold a second hearing March 1 at the CSUN Conference in San Diego. The hearing will be open to the general public and will not be limited to those registered for the conference.

Further information on this rulemaking is available on the Board’s website.

The hearing will take place at the Board’s meeting space at 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 800, in downtown Washington, D.C.  Registration is not required, but those who wish to provide comments are encouraged to contact Kathy Johnson at johnson@access-board.gov, (202) 272-0041 (voice), or (202) 272-0065 (TTY).  Those unable to attend in person can make arrangements with Ms. Johnson to provide comments by phone.  The Board will also provide a dial-in option (limited capacity) for listening to testimony and online real-time transcription of the proceedings 

Public Hearing on the Draft Update of ICT Requirements
January 11, 9:00 to 12:00
Access Board Meeting Room
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004

Call-in option (listening only):
Dial:  (517) 308-9247 or (888) 469-2078 (toll-free)
Passcode: 4144
Note:  Contact Kathy Johnson in advance if you wish to make comments by phone

Real-time transcription:
http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ACCESSBOARD01-11-2012

A second hearing will be held March 1 in San Diego at the annual CSUN conference.  The hearing will be open to the general public and will not be limited to those registered for the conference.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the announcement from Google that they had markedly improved the accessibility of various free apps they deliver to the public. In a article from the E-Access Bulletin of October, Brian Gaff, an accessibility columnist says “not so fast!”

Google Gaps:

Our regular correspondent Brian Gaff, who is on the committee of the Kingston upon Thames Association for the Blind, writes in to grumble about accessibility issues relating to Google services.

“Judging by the comments in the Google group ‘accessible’ it seems that Google have painted themselves into a corner with their new online apps like Google Plus and Google Docs,” Gaff says. “Half of them won’t work with most basic screenreaders and so they add ChromeVox to their Chrome browser. Hardly what blind folk would want, to have to alter access technology just to use Google’s stuff.

“The failing here surely is that the folk writing the code are not aware enough of what works and what does not for blind access. It’s sad that in this age we are still saying that the writers of code are not educated in making sites that just work out of the box, so to speak.

“Surely in this age when people want more users to generate more revenue, it ought to be a no-brainer to get as many folk as possible to be able to use web sites, software and online systems, but it seems it’s not. We are invisible I suspect.

“I block Google’s ads now as they persist in trying to sell me Venetian blinds… grin.”

Copyright 2011 Headstar Ltd http://www.headstar.com .

We’ve recently made some accessibility enhancements to Google Calendar, Google Docs and Google Sites. Improvements have been made in keyboard shortcuts and support for screen readers among other items.

Google Calendar: Google Calendar now has new keyboard shortcuts and better screen reader support for our blind users. Members of the blind community can now use JAWS, VoiceOver and ChromeVox to manage your calendars, create and edit events or simply browse your events.

Google Docs and Google Sites: New keyboard shortcuts and better screen reader support with support for two screen readers: JAWS and ChromeVox.

Read the rest of the report

As reported here, you will recall that Google had gotten into some hot water with the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) last spring. NFB had lodged a formal complaint to the Department of Justice on concerns it had regarding the accessibility of these free applications. We’ll be checking them out and spreading the word.

The Law School Admissions Council (LASC) in the US has agreed to make its website fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users following legal action by the country’s National Federation of the Blind (NFB).

The NFB filed a lawsuit against LASC in 2009 claiming that the organisation’s website – used by nearly every US law school to accept student applications – violated the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (a California-based piece of discrimination legislation).

The federation claimed it was not possible for screen-readers to recognise various text on the website, meaning that visually impaired law school applicants who wished to apply online were forced to rely on assistance from a sighted employee – over the phone – at LASC’s customer support service, which was only available at certain times.

Following a two-year legal battle a settlement has been reached whereby LASC will make its website accessible by allowing screen-readers to recognise all text on the site, meaning visually impaired applicants will be able to independently complete applications at a time of their choosing.

The changes will come into effect from September 1 this year, and the NFB will perform semi-annual accessibility testing of the site until September 1, 2012.

From 2006-08, the NFB was involved in a similar case supporting a class action against the US superstore chain Target for the alleged inaccessibility of its website. Target eventually agreed to pay six million dollars and make changes to its site, while not accepting liability (see original story on Headstar).

__

Copyright 2011 Headstar Ltd, used as permitted.

To subscribe to this free monthly bulletin, email eab-subs@headstar.com with ‘subscribe eab’ in the subject header. You can list other email addresses to subscribe in the body of the message. Please encourage all your colleagues to sign up! To unsubscribe at any time, put ‘unsubscribe eab’ in the subject header.

Two per cent of US adults – six million people – have a disability that makes it difficult or impossible for them to use the internet, according to new research on the technology habits and abilities of disabled US citizens.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan body conducting social science research, also found that Americans with a disability are less likely than other adults to use the internet, with just 54% of US adults with a disability (around 45 million people) reporting themselves as going online, compared with 81% of non-disabled adults.

The quality of internet speed and access were also shown to vary according to a person’s disability profile. “People living with disability, once they are online, are also less likely than other internet users to have high-speed access or wireless access. For example, 41% of adults living with a disability have broadband at home, compared with 69% of those without a disability”, the survey found.

The survey said all these factors could impact negatively on an individual’s employment and life opportunities.

The research for ‘Americans living with disability and their technology profile’ was conducted using telephone interviews with more than 3,000 people from the US, between August and September 2010.

Copyright 2011 Headstar Ltd http://www.headstar.com. You may subscribe to E-access Bulletin here

I had this feeling today when I read a series of articles from this week’s Chronicle of Higher Education about accessible and universal design in college websites (links to all articles below). The cover story for the series tells the story of Darrell Shandrow, a senior at Arizona State University at Tempe. Mr. Shandrow is a journalism major who at age 37 would be considered a “non-traditional” student. But what makes Mr. Shandrow all the more non-traditional is the fact that he is blind student who isn’t afraid of making a few waves.

The right place, right time comment has to do with the fact that I had just blogged a few days ago about this exact topic. It’s nice to see some supporting documentation for my position.

If you are interested in the stuff I write about here you should absolutely read these articles. And like most on-line news stories today there is a place to make comments. I find reading the comments to often be more informative than the article. In this case, the comments made by a few people prove the point of why we need to be advocates for accessible and universal design and why we need to be vigilant.

After reading the articles the first thing I did was send the links out to a half-dozen colleagues and put links on Twitter. Then I went and testing the home page of my alma mater. St. Francis College of Brooklyn would probably score in the lower third.

As someone who started their web design career as a university webmaster, I have a particular affection for this topic. But to me web accessibility for a college/university website is a no-brainer.

The series:

Chronicle of Higher Education article “Colleges Lock Out Blind Students Online”

Sidebar: About Cal State’s success

Sidebar: Chart ranking the best and worst college web sites

Universal Design, Usability, and Accessibility

The Lion Shrine at Penn State University by Nathaniel C. Sheetz - Image from Wikimedia Commons

I am still waiting for the definitive legal case which affirms that the websites of all institutions of higher education (IHE) be accessible to people with disabilities. There was a celebrated case in California a few years back where the entire state university system was ruled to be out of compliance. The net result was the development of strong guidelines and rules for UC campuses.

Penn State University may be the next IHE to get paid a visit by the Office of Civil Rights. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting: “The National Federation of the Blind sent a seven-page complaint letter dated Friday to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that Penn State is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Having spent some time in Pennsylvania, I know that Penn State is huge with satellite campuses around the state. They have also been big proponents of distance learning and having personally used their system, I can confirm this statement also made in the article, “Course-management software, which allows students and professors to interact online and perform course-related functions, also ‘is almost completely inaccessible to blind users,’ the complaint says.”

It will be interesting to follow this case. Go Nittany Lions!

Resources:

The Philadelphia Inquirer article, “Blind advocates allege Penn State services not blind friendly”

Information about IHE’s web accessibility obligations under the law from AccessIT

In my first blog on this testimony, I described Mr. Bagenstos’ commentary on e-books and the rights of people with disabilities. In his testimony, he also briefly discussed the issue of website accessibility. But in this section, the message was less clear. He notes that the federal courts “have reached different conclusions” with regard to the issue of web accessibility for “private places of public accommodation.”

Mr. Bagenstos’ does make it clear that the websites of federal, state and local governments must be fully accessible to people with disabilities. However, he notes technical differences under Title I, Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which lead to some of the confusion, particularly with “private places of public accommodations covered by Title III.” So, at this point, it is not clear as to where we are with regard to all websites needing to be accessible. It seems definitive case law is not quite there yet.

Here is Mr. Bagenstos’ testimony regarding website accessibility:

The Department of Justice Positions Regarding Website Accessibility

The Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division began to provide technical assistance to a host of public and private entities that were in the process of assisting federal agencies with Section 508 compliance, and much of its guidance on making Internet sites accessible developed from there. There are several sets of standards describing how to make websites accessible to individuals with disabilities. Government standards for website accessibility were developed pursuant to Section 508. Many entities elect to use the standards that were developed and are maintained by the Web Accessibility Initiative, a subgroup of the World Wide Web Consortium (“W3C7″).

Ensuring that people with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to access the benefits of emerging technologies is an essential part of our disability rights enforcement at the Department of Justice. Because the Internet was not in general public use when Congress enacted the ADA and the Attorney General promulgated regulations to implement it, neither the statute nor the regulations expressly mention it. But the statute and regulations create general rules designed to guarantee people with disabilities equal access to all of the important areas of American civic and economic life. And the Department made clear, in the preamble to the original 1992 ADA regulations, that the regulations should be interpreted to keep pace with developing technologies. 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. B.

The Department of Justice has long taken the position that both state and local government websites and the websites of private entities that are public accommodations are covered by the ADA. In other words, the websites of entities covered by both Title II and Title III of the statute are required by law to ensure that their sites are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department is considering issuing guidance on the range of issues that arise with regard to the Internet sites of private businesses that are public accommodations covered by Title III of the ADA. In so doing, the Department will solicit public comment from the broad range of parties interested in this issue.

There is no doubt that the Internet sites of state and local government entities are covered by Title II of the ADA. Similarly, there is no doubt that the websites of recipients of federal financial assistance are covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Department of Justice has affirmed the application of these statutes to Internet sites in a technical assistance publication, Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities ( http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/websites2.htm ), and in numerous agreements with state and local governments and recipients of federal financial assistance. Our technical assistance publication also provides guidance with simple steps to ensure that government websites have accessible features for individuals with disabilities.

As to private places of public accommodation, only two cases – both in federal district courts – have specifically addressed the application of ADA Title III to their websites, and those cases have reached different conclusions. But the position of the Department of Justice has been clear: Title III applies to the Internet sites and services of private entities that meet the definition of “public accommodations” set forth in the statute and implementing regulations. The Department first made this position public in a 1996 letter from Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick responding to an inquiry by Senator Harkin regarding the accessibility of websites to individuals with visual impairments. The letter has been widely cited as illustration of the Department’s position. The letter does not state whether entities doing business exclusively on the Internet are covered by the ADA. In 2000, however, the Department filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit in Hooks v. OKbridge, which involved a web-only business; the Department’s brief explained that a business providing services solely over the Internet is subject to the ADA’s prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of disability. And in a 2002 amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit in Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, the Department argued against a requirement, imposed outside of the Internet context by some federal courts of appeals, that there be a nexus between the challenged activity and a private entity’s brick-and-mortar facility to obtain coverage under Title III. Although Rendon did not involve the Internet, our brief argued that Title III applies to any activity or service offered by a public accommodation either on or off the premises.