Cynthia
D. Waddell Dinner Keynote
Wednesday,
November 19, 2003
6:30-
8:30 p.m.
Thank you for that wonderful introduction! It certainly is a pleasure to return to Gettysburg and meet many of you for the first time but also to re-connect during this important conference. It is hard to believe that it was three years ago that I was here working with you to prepare for the coming of Section 508 and the implementation of the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards.
Since that time, tremendous changes have occurred not only internally with your federal-wide agency implementation and response to Section 508 but also externally in the world of technology and public policy.
My work also changed as I joined the not for profit International Center for Disability Resources to further their mission promoting the equalization of opportunities for people with disabilities and the removal of access barriers to electronic and information technology. As a Section 508 expert, our work has exponentially increased to assist both industry and government in this partnership.
One of the most challenging aspects of my work is serving as a bridge from law and public policy -----to technology and technical standards. I am sure that you are aware that just as policy makers need to understand the impact of their technology choices – technologists need to understand the public policy impact of their design on users. My personal approach is a pragmatic one that is driven by a desire to improve the quality of life for everyone through systemic change and impact.
Just as the Americans with Disabilities Act resulted in a profound impact on the development of rights-based law worldwide, we are now seeing technology development and public policies worldwide being significantly impacted by Section 508.
Today I have been asked to address the impact of Section 508 in the US and abroad as well as to comment on the elaboration of a new international treaty on the rights of people with disabilities.
Constructing Accessible Web Sites/Cynthia Says
Last time – during my first Gettysburg address- I spoke about the benefits of accessible web design, not only for my community of people with disabilities, but how the benefits extended beyond the community of people with disabilities.
I took you back to the Wild, Wild West, where there were no laws and every frontier web site was on its own. We learned how in 1995 a blind City commissioner filed an ADA complaint in my office- a complaint that the City of San Jose web site was not accessible- and how my search for a solution on this issue led me to write the first accessible web design standard for government in the US- even before the launch of the Web Accessibility Initiative by the World Wide Web Consortium. Little did I realize that our local response to this issue was a problem worldwide and that the standard would be quickly recognized as a best practice by the federal government. Yet this standard was just one effort of many across the country that contributed to the development and passage of what we know today as Section 508.
I am pleased to say that this past year I joined a number of experts in the field to publish a now popular book entitled, Constructing Accessible Web Sites. And although I was not going to mention this, I have been specifically asked to comment tonight on the new tool called “Cynthia Says” and keep a straight face without turning red!
Some of you may be familiar with Bobby -- an online validation tool that many of us used early in this effort to help illustrate to policy makers and web designers accessibility issues in web site development.
Today, some of you may not know that Bobby has been bought out by a commercial vendor. In response to this development, three organizations collaborated to create what I believe is a better, more robust online validator that resides on a free educational portal.
The International Center for Disability Resources, The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter and HiSoftware, joined together to launch CynthiaSays last March. Not only does it enable anyone to test a web page, it also educates the tester about the underlying technology and promotes accessible web design.
Frankly, we had been working on this project for quite a while and when I returned from one of my United Nations trips, I was asked if it was ok to name the tool Cynthia Says. I might have had second thoughts if I had known it would evolve into a Cynthia Says portal with my avatar on the Cynthia Tested button! Just as long as they do not animate that cartoon!
Seriously, it is wonderful to hear that the free tool is
being well used – for example, last April when I was in Nice, France speaking
before the European Standardization bodies, I was told that CynthiaSays was
used very successfully for a project underway by the European Union to assess
and remediate web sites of the Member States.
For more information, go to www.cynthiasays.com where there is also available a desktop enterprise version. The tool can test for both Section 508 and W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and has additional helps.
Section 508 and the States
Now that I have met my obligation to tell you about Cynthia
Says - let’s take a look at the impact of Section 508 on the States. Many in the room tonight may already be
aware that the Section 508 impact on State activities has been substantial. In fact, a ripple effect is underway
-impacting State and local agencies.
Many State and local governments across the nation have adopted Section
508 as policy or as legislation. For
example, as you learned today, the State of Florida has adopted Section 508 as
policy. And my own State, the State of
California, has legislated Section 508.
We amended our Government Code to require that all recipients of State
funding must ensure that the technology and web design services they procure
complies with Section 508. Effective
January 2003, this means that cities, counties and even non-profits receiving
State funding must comply with Section 508.
It simply makes sense that States also want to benefit from ensuring
that their investment in technologies and government services reach the widest
possible constituency.
If
we were to look more closely at the States and the role of technology, I
believe we could identify what I call three “State Accessibility Drivers” being
fueled by Section 508.
First,
there are many State eCommerce government initiatives requiring every citizen
access. Just as the federal govt is moving govt services online, States also
want to benefit from this smart and efficient model. But as we know, if accessibility is not addressed in the design
of the web portals, what appears to be every citizen access becomes no access
for the community of persons with disabilities.
With
respect to the web, many States had already conformed to W3C Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines Priority Levels A.
It has not been that difficult, then, for them to add the additional 5
rules that Section 508 requires for accessibility. Across the country, we now frequently see either States following
W3C WAI or implementing a Section 508 hybrid.
My organization has worked closely with State and local governments in
improving implementation policies and procedures and in providing quality
assurance for government and private sector companies.
The
second State accessibility driver, involving Section 508, is the Workforce
Investment Act. This federal law
requires accessible electronic and information technology at One-Stop Centers
to assist citizens in seeking work. As
many of you know, the one stop career centers are part of a unique national
workforce preparation and employment system seeking to meet both business needs
and the needs of job seekers. As the
One-Stop Centers implement the accessible electronic and information technology
mandate, citizens with disabilities will benefit from it. Section 508 provides the necessary technical
specifications for that implementation.
This
past May the Bush Administration held a high level disability policy exchange
with the United Kingdom. Secretary of
Labor Chao and the UK Department for Work and Pensions collaborated for
“Pathways to Work in the 21st Century.” I know that some of you contributed to the success of that event
which included our onsite visit to the one-stop career center at Job-Link in
the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
The
third State accessibility driver is the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Here
there are significant provisions impacting our community to ensure that
everyone, including people with disabilities, can vote in private and
independently at the polls. Even though
the ADA in its preamble speaks of the critical need for access in the exercise
of our right to vote, and even though the ADA informs us on how to provide an
accessible polling location, HAVA now mandates accessible polling locations and
at least one accessible voting machine for each polling location.
HAVA,
for reasons we all understand too well, eliminates punch card voting systems
and the “hanging chad” problem. HAVA
calls for new voting system standards that provide user interfaces for people
with disabilities consistent with Section 508.
In fact, it is a privilege to serve on the IEEE (Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers) Voting Machine Standards committee that is drafting
new voting machine standards. Our role
is to fold in the Section 508 user functionality requirements. Although the new voting machine standards
will undergo a lengthy process before they are finalized, time is of the
essence. Election officials across the
country are now buying machines. By
January 2006, all States must ensure accessible polling locations and at least
one accessible voting machine for each polling location.
Looking at what has transpired, I believe that Section 508
has indeed created a marketplace incentive to design accessibly. The federal procurement process for
electronic and information technology under Section 508 as well as the State
activities, has changed the landscape for the technology industry. In fact, a growing number of commercial
vendors are incorporating user functionality requirements into their product
development cycles so they can compete in the marketplace. Competition based on accessible design is
here.
Leaving the U.S., Section 508 has also had an impact overseas. Across the Atlantic, we see Europe engaged in activities connected with eAccessibility and the Design for All Initiative. In addition, the European Parliament, the legislative body of the European Union, has completed the second reading of legislation that includes accessibility considerations for all procurements of goods, products and services. This year I was privileged to speak in Nice, France before the European Union standardization bodies on Section 508 and accessible design. This was the first “Accessibility for All” conference to gather together the major European technical bodies to discuss accessibility standards.
Across the Pacific, we see Japan heavily engaged in the development of the Japanese Industrial Standards where it will be a pleasure to again return next year to address the industry and government about Section 508. Just last week I met with a Japanese delegation at their request to prepare for my visit to talk about Section 508. During our meeting I learned that they are expecting to time the release of the final version of the Japanese Industrial Standards during my visit. Remember, vendors overseas also want to sell their electronic and information technology in the US, so they are mindful of how the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards might impact their product design. In fact, in some respects the current draft of the Japanese Industrial Standards might be considered more thorough than our standards. But there is no question in my mind that Section 508 has had a profound impact in Japan.
The global impact on accessible design is also evident in Australia and so this seems like a good time to tell you about a precedent setting case in accessible web that is based on Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act.
Let me tell you a true story about the Olympics and how an individual wanted to know about the competition results. After all, wouldn’t you think that an Olympic website would be the place to find up to the minute news about the games and to track results as they unfold? Think again.
In
1999 an Australian gentleman by the name of Bruce Maguire went to the Sydney
Olympic games website to obtain sports results. Now, Mr. Maguire was a blind individual who relied upon assistive
computer technology to access the content of websites. His screenreader software would audibly read
out loud the text found at the website.
Unfortunately, although the text was on the Olympic website, it was not
coded according to be accessible. For
this reason, Mr. Maguire could not access the Index to Sports tables as well as
the Result tables. Alleging that the
Olympic Games website was not accessible under the Australian Disability
Discrimination Act, Bruce Maguire filed his complaint.
If you were in the Australian courtroom for the arguments – you would have heard Counsel for the defense argue, on behalf of the Sydney Olympic Game Committee against web accessibility by saying, Your Honor:
§
There
are one thousand two hundred and ninety five web templates;
§
These
templates require extensive changes and specialized accessible web design
skills;
§
It
is a back end database that is responsible for wrapping that text in the cells;
§
It
would take 1 person working 8 hours a day for 368 days to address the
accessible web problems; and the kicker was that
§
It
would cost an additional $2.2 million dollars just for adding the additional
infrastructure to separately host the additional design needed for the Table of
Results.
Seems rather difficult to overcome, doesn’t it? However, Bruce Maguire was represented by Counsel who had done her homework on what it would take to fix this website and make it accessible. She said:
As
a result, the Court held in Favor of Bruce Maguire stating that the website was
a case of direct discrimination based on disability and ordered the Sydney
Olympic Game Committee to fix the website.
After all, people with sight could access the content of the website,
but people without sight could not.
The Court also specifically pointed out for the record that expert testimony indicated that if a website was done right in the beginning, then the cost would be less than 1% of the total effort.
This case is the first ground-breaking decision in Australia and continues to be of great interest to all of us championing the accessible design of technology worldwide.
And on that note, I would like to turn to the topic of the work underway to develop a new international treaty, also known as a convention, on the rights of persons with disabilities. I should correct a comment made earlier today about my serving on the UN Ad Hoc committee. I am staff to the committee as their expert on accessibility – just one of my consulting service offerings.
United Nations
Both the United Nations Charter and the triad of documents forming the International Bill of Human Rights require member States to respect human rights for all.
Yet the existence of these conventions has not guaranteed that the human rights of people with disabilities are addressed. Today a lot of attention is focusing on the World Programme of Action – the guiding instrument for the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons from 1982-1993.
Now, I should stop here and clarify this because two weeks ago when I spoke this at Governor Jeb Bush’s ADA conference in Florida, some attendees thought I was violating “people first” language. I’d like to say right now that the phrase “disabled persons” is the name of the UN document. I cannot change the document title.
World Programme of
Action (WPA)- Accessibility
At the UN it is in the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, where we see the development of the concept of accessibility and reasonable accommodation as a disability rights principle. While the first two goals of the WPA, prevention and rehabilitation, reflect the traditional approach to disability law and policy, the third goal addresses “equalization of opportunities.”
The equalization of opportunities is defined as “the process through which the general system of society, such as the physical and cultural environment, housing and transportation, social and health services, educational and work opportunities, cultural and social life, including sports and recreational facilities are made accessible to all.” The goal of equalization of opportunities for people with disabilities cannot occur without positive action through accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Standard Rules)
A shift has occurred within the past two decades from viewing persons with disabilities as objects of charity to viewing persons with disabilities as holders of disability rights of non-discrimination and equality. For example, one of the major outcomes of the Decade of Disabled Persons was the adoption of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities by the General Assembly in 1993 (Standard Rules).
The Standard Rules summarize the message of the World Programme of Action and incorporate the human rights perspective that has developed. They serve as an instrument for policy-making as well as a basis for technical and economic cooperation among the member States. In fact, the Standard Rules have become a main source of guidance for interpreting disability rights. [as pointed out in General Comment 5 by the ICESCR Committee.] Although it is not a legally binding instrument, the Standard Rules have paved the way for the elaboration of a convention on rights of persons with disabilities.
Through
the Standard Rules, accessibility and reasonable accommodation of difference
are a critical concept for addressing non-discrimination and equality in the
global society and in member State programs.
The
right of reasonable accommodation is a common principle in most comparative
disability discrimination law and has had great influence in the development of
anti-discrimination legislation in countries around the world.
Ad Hoc Committee
On December 19, 2001, the same year that Section 508 became effective, the United Nations in General Assembly resolution 56/168 established an Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral international convention or treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities. Their first meeting regarding this treaty was held in July 2002 and their second meeting was held in June of this year.
In March of this year, just three months prior to the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, precedent setting news came out of Manila, the capitol of the Philippines. This was the headlines:
“Interregional Forum of Developing Countries Issues ‘Manila Declaration on Accessible Information and Communications Technology (ICT)’ & Calls for United Nations International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
On the final day of the interregional seminar and regional demonstration workshop, “Empowering Persons with Disabilities,” participants from the countries of Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and the United States of America issued several outcome documents and called for progress on the elaboration of a comprehensive and integrated international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of development. This was the first time that accessible ICT was called for as part of a legal binding instrument protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.
It was a privilege to serve as an expert in accessible technology transfer at the invitation of the United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs and in cooperation with the Government of the Philippines through the Department of Social Welfare & Development. The forum targeted interested Governments of least developed countries, low income countries and countries with economies in transition. It provided an intensive exchange of knowledge and experience in promoting awareness, planning and developing accessible ICT solutions in the context of sustainable and equitable development for present and future generations.
On Friday, March 7, 2003, while serving as Rapporteur - two outcome documents were developed by the seminar and workshop participants: the “Manila Declaration on Accessible Information and Communications Technologies (ICT)” and the “Manila Accessible ICT Design Recommendations.” These documents recognize that accessible ICT with reasonable accommodation empowers and enables persons with disabilities to enjoy full and equal participation in society and noted that the world was “at a significant crossroad where ICT accessibility barriers need to be addressed at all levels . . . .” Because Rule 5 (Accessibility) of the United Nations Standard Rules is not a legal binding document, these outcome documents establish a strategic framework for recognizing accessibility as an essential component of a broad rights-based approach.
In particular, the “Manila Accessible ICT Design Recommendations” address barriers in Web-based information goods and services and set forth minimum threshold requirements based on Universal Design concepts. Pointing to specific “electronic curbcuts,” these minimum requirements for accessible web design enable developing countries and countries around the world to have flexible Web sites for accommodating user needs and preferences.
The outcome documents of the seminar and workshop became part of the United Nations record in June for the development of the new treaty on rights of people with disabilities. This is because the Ad Hoc Committee has directed special attention to the role of accessible information and communications technologies in the conduct of its work.
The March 2003 Manila Declaration was followed by a second call for accessible ICT in April through the Quito, Ecuador Declaration and again in June through the Bangkok Declaration. We are seeing the global call for accessibility coming out of the developing countries. This should not be a surprise due to the fact that 80% of the world’s population of people with disabilities live in developing countries. With limited resources and the need for investments in a technology infrastructure, these countries see the efficient use of their resources in the application of Universal Design principles.
In New York at the Second
Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee in June, it was a privilege to speak before the
world’s gathering of government and non-government organizations as the UN
expert on accessibility. [If you think the screens in this room are big,
imagine two screens in a great assembly hall where each is screen is about half
the size of this room. I cannot tell
you how humbling it felt to power up my laptop and see the opening slide.]
But before my presentation
began, an interesting thing happened.
The moderator noted the real time captioner who was sitting next to me
with a computer screen so I could hear the questions that would come from the
floor – [just like the real-time captioning service you see to my right.] But in this case, the moderator announced to
everyone, at this extraordinary large assembly, that due to my technology
expertise, the session was going to be web-cast around the world. He had mistaken my reasonable accommodation
as a webcast!
Since I was the
accessibility expert, I had to find a polite and diplomatic way at the
appropriate time in my presentation on accessibility to explain that the captioner
was not broadcasting to the world, but to me so that I could hear the question
and answer dialogue with the audience following my presentation.
It might also interest you
that the UN documents provided for the meeting – such as the agenda and letters
of communication from governments to the Ad Hoc Committee about the terms of
the proposed treaty- were not provided in accessible format to participants so
that issue was simply not on their radar.
As for my presentation before the United Nations, it addressed three topics:
1.
The
basic purpose of the convention:
Non-Discrimination and Equality for persons with disabilities;
2.
Why
full participation in society requires mechanisms in law and policy for barrier
removal and reasonable accommodation; and
3.
How
Universal Design and technical standards for accessible design such as Section
508 can drive accessibility mandates for systemic impact.
This
discussion covered familiar topics of barrier removal and reasonable
accommodation and focused on three critical issues:
Accessible
Design of the Built Environment
Access
to Information and Communications; and
Accessible
Design of Technologies.
My
approach also offered a definition of accessibility in the context of
technology for the equalization of opportunities. The definition is as follows:
Accessibility is the accessible design of products, services and the environment where the user interface is flexible enough to accommodate the widest range of user needs, preferences and abilities.
One of the interesting outcomes of this two week meeting at UN headquarters was the fact that we could not agree on a definition of disability that could be applied globally due to differences in cultures, laws and practices. However, we could agree that perhaps a measure of non-discrimination might be a result that accommodates user needs, preferences and abilities. While a lot of work remains to be done on the new treaty language, the first hurdle has been cleared. The assembly agreed that the current international treaty framework was not enough to protect the rights of people with disabilities and so work continues to define the treaty terms.
A lot of work lies ahead if we are to reach the ratification of international treaty. Through all of this, it can truly be said that the Americans with Disabilities Act has become a beacon for the world and the principles of Section 508 and your efforts today are driving a global minimal threshold for accessible technology.
Perhaps you did not know it, but your role in the implementation of Section 508, however how small or large it is, continues to have a profound impact world-wide. On behalf of people with disabilities everywhere, I certainly would like to thank you for this effort.
Thank You.