Information technology and telecommunications play a key role in all aspects of modern life: educational opportunity; seeking and maintaining employment; conducting commerce; participating in civic and social activities. How available are these key technologies for different sectors of the population, for instance those who are economically disadvantaged, in rural areas, or disabled? What role does regulation play in leveling the playing field, and what effects does that regulation have on the information infrastructure as a whole?
Technologies can be more or less "accessible" or usable by people with disabilities, depending on hardware or software design features which facilitate use by individuals with visual, hearing, physical or cognitive disabilities. In the U.S., approximately 20% of the population has some kind of disability or functional limitation, many of which can affect access to these technologies. While features such as speech synthesis or speech recognition required by individuals with various disabilities often have carry-over benefit for other users, this has generally not been to the extent that the marketplace has fulfilled the need for an accessible information infrastructure. Consequently there have been a number of efforts to regulate accessibility, using one of several approaches: regulating procurement, regulating sales, or requiring accommodation from an information provider.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 requires Federal agencies to procure electronic and information technology that allows comparable access to information and data by Federal employees and members of the public seeking information. Through the Technology-Related Assistive for Individuals with Disabilities Amendments of 1994, section 508 also applies to State government procurement. Section 508, before the recent strengthening amendments, was key in leveraging accessibility from software manufacturers due to implementation efforts at the state and federal level that affected large-scale procurements. Under the 1998 amendments, the US Access Board is required to develop standards for accessibility of electronic and information technology, tol include accessibility standards for Federal Web sites. The Access Board is currently convening an Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee which will convene on October 15, 1998 and produce Section 508 standards over the following six months. How broad an impact will these standards, together with the new compliance measures required under Section 508, have on information technology in general, and the Web in particular?
Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires manufacturers of telecommunications eqiupment and customer premises equipment to ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable. In February, 1998, the Access Board published Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines based on a consensus report from a joint industry-disability advisory committee. The Federal Communications Commission has just completed several proceedings relating to accessibility provisions under Section 255 but has not yet issued its rulemakings regarding compliance mechanisms for Section 255. One of the questions asked in a recent FCC NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) was the extent to which Section 255 should apply to the internet. What is the likely impact of Section 255 on the internet and the Web, depending on how the FCC rules on questions of internet coverage and compliance mechanisms? To what extent are other countries pursuing similar legislation, and what impact will the relative lack of efforts at international harmonization of requirements have on manufacturers?
When the Americans with Disabilities was passed in 1990, the internet was not a common feature of many workplaces, and the Web was not yet in existence. However the principles laid down in the ADA -- including reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and accessibility of public accommodations -- provide a relevant foundation for considering access to information technology and telecommunications. In September 1996 the US Department of Justice issued an opinion regarding the applicability of the ADA to accessibility of Web sites. According to the US DOJ opinion, entities covered under Titles II and III of the ADA are obligated to have their Web sites accessible, or to provide comparable information through an alternate means. To date no cases have been brought which directly relate to this opinion. How feasible is it for Title II and III entities to comply with this requirement, given that the solutions for Web accesibility lie among several parties?
A related issue to accessibility of information technology and telecommunications is that of Universal Service. Under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, Congress mandated that the Federal Communications Commission should implement policies for the "preservation and advancement of universal service":
Universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services (47 U.S.C. Section 254).How should the notion of universal service change as the the media of telephone, television, and internet converge, and how should the various state, national, and international regulatory frameworks deal with universal service? What are the implications of extending universal service to a principle of "universal access to the Global Information Infrastructure," as described by the Clinton Administration in 1993:
A major objective in developing the NII will be to extend the Universal Service concept to the information needs of the American people in the 21st century. As a matter of fundamental fairness, this nation cannot accept a division of our people among telecommunications or information 'Haves' and 'have-nots'. The administration is committed to developing a broad, modern concept of Universal Service - one that would emphasize giving all Americans who desire it easy, affordable access to advanced communications and information services, regardless of income, disability or location.As technologies evolve and often converge, there are challenging technical issues to address. The increasingly multimedia nature of the Web increases difficulty for people with visual and hearing disabilities. What are the technical considerations to support Web accessibility in CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language), XML (Extensible Mark-up Language), MathML, SVG (Schematic Vector Graphics), Mobile Access, WebTV? To what extent can proxy services accommodate shortcomings of browsers and screen readers in accurately linearizing tables and getting access to information in frames? What are some designs for better authoring tools, or evaluation-and-retrofit tools, which can automate accessible design? What new promises and threats for accessibility lie among emerging technologies? How can or should the architecture and technical standards of the Web evolve to encourage the use of such tools?
--Information Infrastructure Task Force. The National Information Infrastructure: An Agenda for Action. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: 1993.
What will the impact be of the various regulations on different parties: content providers? access providers? backbone providers? telecommunications providers? others? How are the functions and obligations of these groups influenced by the architecture of the Web? Might a different architecture lead to different division of responsibility? Finally, the emergence of Web TV, combination PDA/cell phones, and other information appliances is beginning to change the modalities and patterns of Web access. For example, industry analysts predict that by 2002, only half of the people accessing the Web will be doing this via PCs and browsers. What issues will this raise for web accessibility, both from the technical and regulatory perspectives?
Judy Brewer
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
World Wide Web Consortium
jbrewer@w3.org
Return to Course home page
Send comments about this site to 6805-webmaster@martigny.ai.mit.edu.
Last modified: October 17 1998, 6:48 PM