SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
65–010
2000
APPLICABILITY OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TO PRIVATE INTERNET SITES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
Serial No. 96
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Constitution
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MAXINE WATERS, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York
CATHLEEN CLEAVER, Chief Counsel
BRADLEY S. CLANTON, Counsel
JONATHAN A. VOGEL, Counsel
PAUL B. TAYLOR, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
February 9, 2000
OPENING STATEMENT
Canady, Hon. Charles T., a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESSES
Blanck, Peter D., professor of law, the University of Iowa College of Law
Brewer, Judy, director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Conway, Susyn, Reston, VA
Cooper, Charles J., Carvin & Rosenthal
Dorminey, Elizabeth K., Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C.
Hayes, Dennis, chairman, U.S. Internet Association
Lucas, Dr. Steven, CIO and senior vice president, Privaseek, Inc.
Olson, Walter, Wilton, CT
Wunder, Gary, programmer analyst-expert, ITS-Hosp Business Apps, The University of Missouri
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Blanck, Peter D., professor of law, the University of Iowa College of Law: Prepared statement
Brewer, Judy, director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Prepared statement
Conway, Susyn, Reston, VA: Prepared statement
Cooper, Charles J., Carvin & Rosenthal: Prepared statement
Dorminey, Elizabeth K., Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C.: Prepared statement
Hayes, Dennis, chairman, U.S. Internet Association: Prepared statement
Lucas, Dr. Steven, CIO and senior vice president, Privaseek, Inc.: Prepared statement
Olson, Walter, Wilton, CT: Prepared statement
Wunder, Gary, programmer analyst-expert, ITS-Hosp Business Apps, The University of Missouri: Prepared statement
APPLICABILITY OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TO PRIVATE INTERNET SITES
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles Canady [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, William L. Jenkins, Melvin L. Watt, and Barney Frank.
Also present: Representative Robert C. Scott.
Staff present: Cathleen Cleaver, chief counsel; Paul B. Taylor, counsel; Susana Gutierrez, clerk; and Anthony Foxx, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CANADY
Mr. CANADY. The subcommittee will be in order.
By now, most of us are aware of the significant impact the Internet has had on the American economy and on the availability of vast new sources of information to more people than ever before. Thankfully many of the benefits of the Internet have been shared by the disabled community, including the blind, whose independent access to information has been substantially enhanced by the Internet. The Internet industry has also responded to recent concerns expressed by the disabled community that they continue to share the benefits of new and advancing ways of communicating ideas and information.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By early March, we anticipate the Federal Government will promulgate handicapped accessibility regulations that will apply to Federal department and agency Internet sites and be enforceable beginning August of this year. The proposed rules—as drafted by the Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee for Federal department and agency online publishing—include provisions that may require streaming audio or audio files to be accompanied by simultaneous text; that require that streaming video be captioned; that require the use of color to convey information be restricted in some ways; and that require Web masters to provide at least one mode that does not require user vision by formatting all information so that it is compatible with Braille and speech synthesis devices. Other provisions may ban touch screens, prohibit moving text or animation, unless the user can go to a static display with the same information, and require all Web sites to, ''provide at least one mode that minimizes the cognitive and memory ability required of the user.''
This endeavor on the part of the Federal Government can help serve to educate both the public and private sectors concerning how greater handicapped accessibility of the Web can be achieved with certain relatively low cost solutions. However, it is the opinion of the Department of Justice currently that the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act already apply to private Internet Web sites and services. I will also note that on November 2nd of last year, the National Federation for the Blind filed a class action lawsuit against America Online, alleging that the ADA's accessibility requirements apply to AOL's Internet services and that the manner in which such services are currently provided violates the ADA. At issue in particular is title III of the ADA which requires a subset of private employers, including most businesses to which the public has access, to ensure that individuals with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the facilities they provide when the provision of such access is reasonable.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In light of the significant impact of the Internet on the economy, the potential costs that application of the ADA may impose on that rapidly expanding segment of the economy and the innovations it has encouraged, and the substantial first amendment implications of applying the ADA to private Internet Web sites and services, I believe it is appropriate for the Constitution Subcommittee to consider the impact of the ADA on the Internet.
That is the purpose of today's hearing. I look forward to hearing the testimony of all the witnesses today.
Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling a hearing on a subject that is of obvious importance and obvious interest, especially noting the fact that a number of people have shown up to listen to the testimony and stay abreast of the issues. I endorse the purpose of the hearing, to make us more aware of the implications of the existing ADA law to the Internet and whether there are additional changes that may be necessitated in the ADA. This is the way we inform ourselves better.
I am confident that we have a good cross-section of witnesses who will present all sides of this issue. At the end of the day, we all will be better informed and advised about what, if anything, we need to do with reference to this issue.
I yield back the balance of my time in the interest of expediting getting to the witnesses and again express my appreciation for the hearing.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CANADY. Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to what people have to say and obviously the purpose of a hearing is to listen. I do think some context is relevant. I was here when we passed the original Americans with Disabilities Act and we heard a lot of predictions of disaster. Fortunately, none of them have come true.
As we evaluate the arguments we hear today, I think it is relevant to keep in mind the experience we have had, and I think the experience we have had is that we have been able as society to administer the Americans with Disabilities Act in a reasonable way. We were told, for instance, it would be a great drag on the economy. The economy has of course in the period since the Americans with Disabilities Act performed extremely well. Clearly it was not a serious drag on the economy.
That doesn't mean everything was perfect and that no mistakes were made. It does mean that overall we were able to pass an act and, more importantly, enforce it in ways that have helped many of our fellow citizens without having a lot of the negative effects that were predicted. That doesn't solve all the problems we will be dealing with today. But I start with the inclination to believe that with the same kind of reasonable approach we have done before, it will work in the future.
I again want to stress that many people made very dire predictions about the terrible effect the Americans with Disabilities Act would have. What we are talking about here, let's be very clear, is this: In this very wealthy society, we are talking about devoting a very, very small part of our overall resources to make an enormous positive difference in the lives of some of our citizens. We are talking about a small number of people who have disadvantages through no fault of their own and we are asking the rest of us to make a very slight change. I think that is really the key to me.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I look at American society since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the majority who were not the beneficiaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the primary sense, I think we all have been beneficiaries in that we have increased the capacity of our society as a whole but it has been no serious problem for the majority and it has in many cases led to a very significant improvement in opportunity and advantages for people who have the disabilities.
As I said, I am prepared to listen. I can't stay all day because at 2 o'clock we are going to go yell at the Secretary of Energy for not doing anything about fuel prices in the Northeast. But the hearing is an important one. I plan to read and pursue what has been said.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you.
For the hearing today, we have divided the witnesses into two panels. The first panel will discuss some technical issues relating to the accessibility of the Internet to the disabled, and also address whether or not the Americans with Disabilities Act is an appropriate vehicle for increasing access to the Internet by the disabled. The second panel will discuss some of the policy and legal implications of the ADA's application to private Internet sites.
Now, on our first panel today, we hope to be hearing from Dennis Hayes, who has not arrived yet. I will go ahead and introduce him and hopefully he is going to be able to join us in progress. He has had problems with his plane connections, I understand. Mr. Hayes is chairman of the U.S. Internet Industry Association and the inventor of the PC modem, referred to as the Hayes modem, which he invented in 1977. Mr. Hayes later founded D.C. Hayes Associates, which became a leader in the modem industry. He retired as chairman of that company in 1998.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will also hear from Mr. Gary Wunder. Mr. Wunder is an expert blind computer user from Columbia, Missouri, who makes his living developing programs and supervising projects and computer technology for the University of Missouri hospitals, where he has served as a programmer analyst expert since 1978. He has experience as both a designer and blind user of information technology. Mr. Wunder will address the significance of access to the Internet without sight.
Our third witness will be Dr. Steven Lucas. Dr. Lucas is senior vice president and chief information officer of Privaseek, Inc. He has over 18 years of experience in the information technology industry and maintains an advisory role with the Web Accessibility Initiative within the World Wide Web Consortium, where he has contributed toward industry self-regulation and standardization. Before joining Privaseek, Dr. Lucas was the CIO of Excite and a member of the technical staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories, where he participated in the design and development of the Unix operating system. Dr. Lucas received his Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University, a B.S. in electrical engineering from the Citadel, has a J.D. from Franconia College and an M.B.A. from New Hampshire College. He is on the board of directors of the U.S. Internet Industry Association.
Our fourth witness is Judy Brewer. Ms. Brewer directs the Web Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium, where she coordinates five areas of work for W3C with regard to Web accessibility, ensuring that the technologies of the Web support accessibility, developing accessibility guidelines for Web content, developing tools for evaluation and repair of Web sites, conducting education and outreach on Web accessibility solutions and monitoring research and development which may impact future accessibility of the Web. She serves as a liaison on issues of Web accessibility to industry and national governments, disability communities and research organizations.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our fifth witness is Susyn Conway. Ms. Conway is an Internet and marketing consultant with extensive experience with the Internet industry. For the last 9 years, she has worked in news media marketing, including CD ROMs, the Internet and other extensions of traditional marketing and promotion. Previously, she was the director of corporate programming and the director of market research at America Online, Inc. She is speaking for the U.S. Internet Industry Association.
I want to thank all of you for being here with us this afternoon. I would ask that you do your best to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. Without objection, your full written statements will be made a part of the permanent hearing record. If you will observe the light, when it is green, 5 minutes is running. When it is yellow, your time is about up and when it is red, your 5 minutes is gone. I don't think anyone is going to insist on strict enforcement of the 5-minute rule, but it would be helpful if you could do your best to finish within 5 minutes because we do have a subsequent panel. With that, unfortunately Mr. Hayes has not arrived yet so we will begin with Mr. Wunder. We will also give a signal rather than just using the light, I will maybe gently——
Mr. WUNDER. Accessibility in action.
Mr. CANADY. I appreciate that. I will gently tap my——
Mr. FRANK. The only other accommodation we could make, Mr. Chairman, is we have to explain to the dogs that only the Members of Congress are allowed to bark at each other.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CANADY. And no biting is allowed. I will gently tap the gavel when there is 1 minute remaining, which is what the yellow light indicates.
Mr. Wunder.
STATEMENT OF GARY WUNDER, PROGRAMMER ANALYST-EXPERT, ITS-HOSP BUSINESS APPS, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
Mr. WUNDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here today not as an expert on the law but as one who knows the marvelous possibilities of the Internet and the technology it represents and also as one who knows something about the problems which come when one doesn't have access. I want to explain to you that blind people use the Internet by using what we call screen readers. That lets us get information in audio format and in Braille that you see on the screen. We also can use our keyboards to enter those things for which you often use a mouse. You move your mouse and click, we tab to an item and press enter. You press a scroll bar to move up and down through a list while we use our up and down arrows to do the same thing. Both of us, blind and sighted, have access if the graphics, boxes and buttons have labels, or little textual descriptions telling us what they are and if programs allow us to use the keyboard to simulate what you do with the mouse.
Our problem is not graphics or the mouse. Our problem is that sometimes designers forget that we have money and need the goods and the services they offer and in so doing they fail to offer us what we would call nonvisual alternatives. Often when we hear about new software and ask that accessibility be designed into it, as we did in the case of Microsoft Windows, we are told we need to wait to see if the program will be a commercial success. Then when it is selling like hot cakes and we are losing jobs right and left because of inaccessibility, we are told that what we want is hard to implement in an already existing product and that we should have been involved when it was being designed. The physical corollary is that it is much easier to design an elevator into a new building than it is to find a place for an elevator shaft in one which is already full.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ten years ago, I worked as a manager not only writing programs but also supervising others doing the same thing. Gradually our tools became more and more graphical and fewer nonvisual alternatives existed. One such tool was Microsoft Project, which listed all my assignments and the assignments of those working for me, along with their key dates, both intermediate and final. These were displayed on a screen, such that those needing to be completed first were in bright red and those with due dates further out were in lesser shades. The information I needed could have been more easily displayed on a list ordered by due date, but no alternative to the flashy visual display was available. I took a demotion from manager to programmer because of this kind of software. It wasn't that I couldn't understand the software, it wasn't that I couldn't manage the tasks. My demotion came from the fact that only one paradigm; that is, screen mouse graphics, was considered, and there was no nonvisual alternative, a simple list.
Mr. Chairman, the blind and the disabled have a contract with our society. You say to us that you will provide money for training, money for education and a climate of opportunity for those of us whose abilities have far too often been overlooked. Our part of the bargain is to be self-reliant, to use our minds, to adapt, to ask only for those things we need to really live, compete and pull our own weight. If screen reading technology could read any Web site that someone might concoct, if we can perform great feats of mental gymnastics and simply memorize screens which are difficult for us to navigate, then I wouldn't be here today asking that my needs and those of millions of Americans be considered by business and by government. We need the innovation and the good will of business who recognize the buying power we and the millions of senior citizens have. We also need government leading by example and expressing the clear expectation that businesses and business opportunities be open to all.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lessened access for the blind is ominous, Mr. Chairman. The Internet is not just a window on the world but more and more the Internet is the world. It is where we talk, it is where we shop, and it is where we make our living. It is the extension of the personal computer. If we lower the bar for accessibility here, we will lower it for all consumer products involving the computer.
Today, let's lower it for Web sites and the Internet. Tomorrow Microsoft Word, Corel Word Perfect, the list goes on and on. And with each function which fails to be made accessible goes another job which a blind or disabled person can fill. The Internet is business. It is business today and it is business in the future. My business communication runs on e-mail. My meeting calendar is maintained using the tools of the Internet. And even the list of phone numbers I use to contact colleagues must be retrieved on the Internet.
I urge you to affirm this country's commitment to access. Weigh in on the side of those who need it and differentiate between the real needs and solutions demonstrated here today and the hypothetical and yet unproved burden to the growth of this industry. What we need is achievable, what we are asking is reasonable, and if we stay the course, all of us, business and consumers, will be the beneficiaries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wunder follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY WUNDER, PROGRAMMER ANALYST-EXPERT, ITS-HOSP BUSINESS APPS, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gary Wunder. I work as a Programmer-Analyst Expert for the University of Missouri and serve in a volunteer capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind.
I come today to speak to the issue of access to the Internet and the extent to which that access is protected under federal law. I do not come as an expert on the law. I am here as a person who makes his living writing programs and getting information to medical doctors and hospital administrators. I am also here as a person who has been the beneficiary of the computer age and the Internet, and I also come as one who has paid the price when access to computers and the Internet were off limits to me because only the needs of visual users were considered in the design of some very important products. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I also come as a person who is blind and who knows both how difficult accessing electronic information can sometimes be and how liberating that access can be when just a little thought is given to alternative methods of access.
Blind people look to the Internet as a long-sought solution to the problems of communication that result from lack of sight. Ask any blind person what physical problems confront him as a result of blindness, and he'll tell you they are access to the printed word and not being able to drive. Think now about the beauty of the Internet for this group. Material typed into a computer can generate print for the sighted, Braille for the blind, or synthesized speech for either group.
Because a user can travel from web site to web site without ever leaving his chair, the difficulty posed by transportation in the conduct of business is also significantly reduced. I should note in discussing access that the vast majority of blind people are over age sixty-five. I think it would be a costly mistake for us to overlook the needs of this community and the significant purchasing power they represent.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since members of this Committee are sighted, perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain how a person without vision uses the Internet. Many of us purchase programs called screen readers which look at the information sent to the screen and attempt to tell us, through speech or Braille, what is displayed there. The text on the screen is converted to something we can hear or feel, as well as the little pictures and graphics known as icons. If there is a button we are to push to move to the next screen, our screen readers say ''NEXT–BUTTON.'' If we are presented with a form where we are to enter our name and address, the screen reader will say ''NAME'' when we are in the name field, and when we come to the area of the screen where we are to enter our state, it will say ''COMBO BOX'' and allow us to move through the choices until the two letter abbreviation we want is found. Those kinds of boxes, which usually appear in alphabetical order, leave me wishing I was from Alabama or Alaska instead of Missouri.
Most of you make extensive use of a mouse when you navigate the Internet, but blind people cannot do this. Instead of a mouse used to point and click, we use the tab and arrow keys to move from item to item on a screen. Therefore, our request of web site developers is that each item which can be accessed with a mouse also have provision for being accessed by the keyboard. This could mean a tab stop or perhaps a key sequence which could perform the same task as clicking with a mouse.
In many ways, living in what has come to be called the Information Age is a dream come true for people who are blind. Not so long ago, writing this testimony for you would have meant first writing a draft in Braille, writing a second Braille copy to perfect the draft, and then typing that Braille document so you could read it in print. Imagine the difficulty if, while trying to transcribe the Braille into print, I was interrupted by a phone call. Where did I leave off in the transcription? Have I made any typographical errors, and if I have, can they be corrected with white out? The fact is that to ensure I had written a quality presentation for this subcommittee would have taken the involvement of someone with sight to proofread my final product. Now, with the advent of the personal computer, speech and Braille technology, and the Internet, I can write my material myself, proof it myself, send it to others for their comments and criticisms, and eventually send the final draft halfway across the country for printing and distribution. Never in my wildest imaginings did I conceive of this possibility when I was typing my high school and college papers, but I would be hard-pressed to do without this now.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For all of our progress and the opportunity the Internet holds, there are still some problems we face in using the services which more and more Americans take for granted. One of our biggest difficulties comes when we try to shop on-line using pages where the creator of the web site has failed to label the pictures he shows with a brief textual description. Computer technology is not yet sufficiently advanced to recognize a picture and tell us that what appears on the screen. For this information we must rely on the creator of the page we're viewing to add a line of text which says, for example, ''Swiss Army Knife'' or ''Queen Size Electric Blanket.'' These explanations are easily added and are of tremendous benefit not only to the blind but also to people who see.
Sometimes newspaper articles, in an attempt to be helpful to the blind, have left the impression that graphical displays are an obstacle for us. The presence of graphics is not the problem, but the presence of unlabeled graphics and the design of systems which rely only on graphics are what cause us tremendous difficulty. People who have things to market should make their pages as visually attractive and marketable as they can, in the same way they would design a store window. Making services available to the blind isn't a matter of deciding whether to make a screen visually appealing or audibly accessible. It means taking thirty seconds to add a textual description to the graphic you've decided to display, and thereby expanding your customer base to include the ever-growing number of persons who either do not see or do not see well.
Some have suggested that labeling graphics and push buttons might constitute an undue burden on small businesses and Internet start-ups. This is to state the problem in the negative. However, one could also say with equal plausibility, that choosing graphics rather than text is the burden. Either one—used exclusively—limits the audience that can be reached and results in missed opportunities to communicate and sell products.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Whatever costs there are in making the Internet accessible, one thing can be stated without argument—designing accessibility in from the start is easier than trying to incorporate it after the fact. As we know from experience with physical structures, it is much easier to plan for an elevator than it is to figure out where to put an elevator shaft in an already occupied building.
In recognition of this concept, and because of the economic benefits derived from an accessible Internet, representatives from industry, government and the general public have collaborated through the Web Access Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium, which has developed and promulgated guidelines and recommendations to enhance and ensure accessibility to the World Wide Web. This group has made great strides in achieving a consensus, and its work has been largely responsible for developing the infrastructure which has incorporated concepts to encourage full access into its basic design.
When we discuss the economics of access, we dare not overlook the broader commercial applications for the products created to meet special needs. Well known are the spin-offs from our exploration of space which have resulted in products as technologically simple as the Corning Ware used in our ovens, to the relatively complicated handheld calculator which helps us balance our checkbooks. Less commonly understood is the role of access technology in advancing the frontiers of consumer products.
In 1976, the first reading machine for the blind was developed which could look at ink print on a page, scan it into a digital image, recognize its ink shapes as letters, and then verbalize the resulting text in human-like speech. Now scanning devices are readily available to the general public. The recognition of text from a page allows many companies to store paper documents in their electronic data banks, and the text-to-speech pioneered in this first machine is now common in everything from simple children's toys to complicated telephone answering machines. Let us also not forget that the first efforts to get a computer to understand human speech came as a result of trying to give people who could not use a keyboard access to the world of computing. Now this technology is sufficiently advanced to allow the dictation of this very statement and its accurate transcription.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sometimes, when I've spoken on behalf of accessibility, the argument that adding textual labels will result in the elimination of visual attractiveness and program responsiveness has been advanced. Technologically there is little merit in this position. A graphic displayed on a screen may take upwards of half a million computer characters to display, while its text description will take less than 100. The text we need is displayed on the screen only when a user focuses on the graphic to which it pertains. It is even possible to have text labels which are never displayed on the screen but which exist in the background and are only retrievable by the screen readers we use.
Mr. Chairman, blind people are caught in a catch-22 when arguing for accessibility. When we go to a company which is trying to develop a new product as we did when Microsoft started marketing the Windows operating system, we are told that we need to wait and see whether the product will be accepted by the public. We're assured that blind people are valued customers and that our needs will be addressed as soon as the technology demonstrates it's viability. Then, after the product is selling like hot cakes and we're losing access to jobs and information, we're told that it is difficult and time consuming to modify the existing product. It may not be the next release or the one after that, but be assured that eventually our needs will be considered.
My own experience as a programmer testifies to the fact that it is often easier to write a program from scratch than it is to go into someone else's program, figure out what they were trying to accomplish, and then determine what I can do to make the requested changes. The place for considering usability by people who will not use the computer under the traditional mouse/screen paradigm is here at the beginning. This is where it is least expensive and most likely to be truly integrated into the product.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we are discussing when we talk about access is not whether it is technologically possible but whether we plan to use this technological revolution to include people who have all too often been excluded. Let me give you an example of the technology which gives me difficulty as I try to earn my living and advance to ever greater responsibility.
Microsoft Project is a program which lets people manage the work tasks they've been assigned. Each project has a due date, and if it is large, as many projects are, it will have subtasks which themselves have intermediate due dates. When a manager looks at his projects, he is presented with a screen showing those projects which are most critical in bright red, and those of less criticality in lighter shades. It is intuitively obvious as he looks at the screen which projects need his immediate attention and which will wait. The calculations done by this program are simple and straightforward: check today's date against the due date of each project and assign a color for display based on the difference between the two.
No matter how obvious the technique, that number is still inaccessible to me. If someone had thought about the nonvisual user when designing this system, it would have been easy to put out a list in order of due dates. A list with the most critical project first and the least critical last would have given me exactly the same information gained by my sighted colleagues, but a mechanism for making that program produce a simple list was not a part of its design.
I could give you many other examples of software which has been similarly inaccessible, but the important point is that the information which was needed was displayed with only one audience in mind—the visual user—although there is nothing inherently visual about two dates and the number of days which separate them. In fact, much more effort went into figuring out how to display those projects in a visually attractive color scheme than went into determining their order.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I said at the beginning of this testimony that I knew the blessing of access and the curse of inaccessibility. Programs such as the one I have described resulted in my taking a demotion from Project Manager to Senior Programmer. No one had problems with my job performance as long as we used systems which were primarily textual, but five years ago the technology I had available could not help me answer the question of how I would supervise the development, testing, and implementation of new computer systems using the tools which my organization had committed itself to purchase.
I've never seen any figures to indicate that the cost of accessibility is economically impractical, and I submit that the issue may have more to do with ideological objections to government involvement than the real cost of implementing accessible systems. Mr. Chairman, our society and its disabled people have entered into a contract in which society says to the disabled, we will give you training and we will provide opportunity if, in return, you will do what you can to join with us in work, in community, and in taking responsibility for pulling your own weight. As blind people we have interpreted this contract to mean that we must be as self-reliant as we can, asking only from society those things we really need in order to compete. If it were possible for the makers of screen reading programs to accurately read any web page a designer could concoct, or if I could figure out a way to deal with such pages through memorization or other mental gymnastics which we who are blind are called upon to employ, then I wouldn't be here today to ask for the help of the Congress and the business community in focusing on the special needs of blind consumers.
There are many examples of companies and small businesses which have enthusiastically joined with us to make their E-businesses friendly for blind users, but the importance of government leading by example and the law expressing the clear expectation that all segments of our society have access dare not be overlooked.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A decision to lessen the expectation that E-business be accessible is ominous for the blind, for we know that the Internet is not just a window on the world, but more and more it is the world. It is where people talk, where people shop, and where people increasingly make their living. Lowering the bar for access won't simply mean fewer shopping sites for people with little or no vision. Since the Internet is only an extension of our personal computers, lessened access will mean fewer programs we can use and fewer employment opportunities for us. The line between the Internet and business is almost nonexistent. In my job, electronic mail conducted via the Internet is the standard way we communicate. Our meeting calendars are maintained electronically and shared using this same technology. Even the list I use to telephone my colleague in a neighboring building is maintained on a mailing list accessible only by using the tools of the Internet.
I urge this Subcommittee to affirm the importance of access to this new world we're entering and to differentiate between the real world needs of blind people and the hypothetical and yet unproved burden placed on small businesses being required to ensure access. The effort required of the business community is minuscule when compared with the benefits to blind and disabled people and to the society in which we live. The cost of isolating the blind, the disabled, and the senior citizens of our nation is far too high, and the benefits to all of us will be immense if only we stay the course.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Wunder. Mr. Lucas.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN LUCAS, CIO AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PRIVASEEK, INC.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for inviting me here to talk about this important issue. As I said before, my name is Dr. Steven Lucas, and I am the Chief Information Officer and Senior Vice President of a company called Privaseek. We are located in Colorado. We specialize in providing consumers with privacy, security and trust on the Web. I am also a member of the board of directors of the U.S. Internet Industry Association and I am an Internet professional that is deeply concerned with the ability of disabled Americans to access and utilize the Internet and its content.
Twenty-five percent of the people will experience a period of disability by age 55 and the percentage increases with age. The population of older U.S. citizens is one of the fastest growing propositions that are attempting to take advantage of the Internet. Many older individuals will be impacted by the lack of accessibility as the aging process results in a need for a Web that can accommodate their special needs.
The World Wide Web can be a powerful medium for knowledge and economic power to people with disabilities. The potential for using technology to level the playing field for people with disabilities is unprecedented. The Internet has become a place of accommodation. Many State and local governments are transitioning to the Internet to process a variety of administrative services. If we are making these transitions using taxpayer money, we must make sure that those who are paying for it can take advantage of that transition and can participate.
The U.S. Government has taken a leadership position by implementing accessibility guidelines aimed at ensuring that Web sites operated by firms doing business with government agencies are accessible. Once implemented, these changes are likely to have a sweeping effect on commercial Web sites as well. Many commercial Web offering tools do not have the capability for Web masters to correct accessible design problems. These deficiencies result in Web engineers who are not exposed to technology that teaches them how to create accessible Web pages. The problem is even more difficult for an engineer who is disabled.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is also a serious lack of educational focus on accessibility in all levels of education for those interested in pursuing a career in Web development. In the early days of the Internet, it was all text based and pretty much universally accessible. The Web has now become a place full of graphical images, clicks, online forms, animated text and music. These can be obstacles to accessibility. Developing an accessible Web site does not mean a developer must abandon artistic presentation or professional look. Many Web sites that have won awards for their designs are also accessible. There are many companies and organizations that are developing technical solutions that will assist disabled users on the Web. I have included a list of some of these promising technologies in my written testimony so I won't go through them here.
While there is little argument that the current state of accessibility of the Web is not adequate, industry has made substantial progress in the area. Some regulation may be effective in compelling industry to adopt certain practices. For example, I think that it is imperative that Web sites post privacy policies that are accessible so that consumers will have access to fair information practices and can take advantage of legislation like the recently enacted Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. If you can't read the privacy policy, you can't take advantage of the information that it discloses.
However, legislation where prematurely applied can also have the effect of slowing technology innovation. Industry may become transfixed on addressing the requirements of compliance rather than thinking out of the box. Solutions may be rushed to market that do not have the quality of a well-engineered product. Application of the ADA in its current form without consideration of the progress made to date could result in companies doing just what is necessary to comply with the law instead of furthering the advancement of technology.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many sites will focus on avoiding litigation instead of addressing the real need of disabled citizens to have access to the valuable content they provide. The cost of potential litigation could also discourage some Web sites from coming online. There is a risk in applying the ADA to the Internet before industry has been given an opportunity to address the issues of accessibility in a commercial and a competitive environment. Incentives for early adopters might also increase the speed in which this occurs.
The online industry must begin to understand the economic importance of providing accessibility. Providing accessible sites is a way to reach tens of millions of potential customers as well as their friends, their relatives and employers. Companies are spending large sums of money on infrastructure and technology to attract more consumers and improve the Internet experience. These expenditures will not benefit millions of users if they are unable to take advantage of them. I believe that an economic motive might work better than threat of an action based on a legislative initiative. Using our collective intelligence and a willingness to work toward a common goal, we can assist our citizens with their disabilities and the use of the Internet.
The techniques and tools are becoming available to help create a Web that is flexible enough to meet the needs and preferences of the broadest range of users of computer and telecommunications equipment for our citizens with disabilities. Before the ADA is applied to the Web, the state of current technology and the technology works in progress should be considered, a period of discussion and review should occur and appropriate amendments made to the existing ADA legislation that reflect the specific and unique requirements of the Internet.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the Internet becomes critically important to the daily lives of more people and as society creates greater opportunities to learn and to work and to pursue leisure activities on the World Wide Web, we can't afford to exclude anyone with desire to take advantage of this rich and rewarding experience, especially when the means to include them is within our grasp.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN LUCAS, CIO AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PRIVASEEK, INC.
Chairman Canady, and members of the Committee:
My name is Steven Lucas, and I am Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Privaseek, Inc. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the US Internet Industry Association, and an Internet professional deeply concerned with the ability of disabled Americans to access and utilize the Internet and its content.
An estimated 48.9 million people, or 19.4 percent of the non-institutionalized people in the United States, have a ''disability'' according to the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (http://www.pcepd.gov/pubs/ek97/facts.htm). That figure means that some form of disability will affect approximately one out of five United States citizens in their lifetime. This is one of the reasons that Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People with disabilities are in all professions. There are programmers, engineers, accountants, teachers, or researchers who have visual, auditory, or mobility disabilities. The number of people with disabilities needing computers to do their work or improve their lives is increasing.
Most people experience a period of disability during their lifetime. Twenty five percent of people will experience a period of disability by age fifty-five. The percentage increases with age. Most of us will experience the effect of a broken bone that requires a cast or an injury that in some way impairs our ability to function in the way we are accustomed to. There are additional situations where we experience similar problems that people with disabilities face. If you're working somewhere there is an abundance of noise such as a plane, airport, or a factory, you may experience the same condition as someone who is hearing impaired. Sometimes technology ''glitches'' cause us to modify the way we work. If we have a broken mouse, we may have to rely on the keyboard just as someone who's blind or quadriplegic might.
Anyone can experience conditions that impose limitations that mimic a disability, and be forced to rely on the same sorts of solutions that are required by many of the disabled population. It is estimated that one in five people will experience a disability at some point in their lives. These numbers are sure to increase as our population ages. Perhaps that puts accessibility into another perspective.
The benefits of accessible web design extend beyond the community of people with disabilities. It eliminates the economic barriers to those who cannot afford expensive computers by enabling the use of inexpensive and less complex technology to access the Internet. For example, people who are cannot read can access the Internet by using screen readers that can convert text to voice and read out loud the content from accessible web pages.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The population of older U.S. citizens is one of the fastest growing populations that are attempting to take advantage of the Internet. Many older individuals will be impacted by the lack of accessibility as the aging process results in the need for a Web that can accommodate their special needs.
The evolution of and the increase in the use of the Internet as a mechanism for employment, education, communication, and commerce require us to consider the technology barriers encountered by users of the incredibly important and empowering communication medium. Over 70% of people with disabilities who are willing and able to work are unemployed. Dr. James Caldwell, the Chair of the Texas Governor's Committee on People with Disabilities, notes ''The current potential for providing access to professional education and employment opportunities to people with disabilities is unprecedented. The current potential for using technology to level the playing field for people with disabilities is unprecedented. We must create systematic ways for communities to realize that potential.'' The World Wide Web can be a powerful means of providing knowledge and economic power to people with disabilities. Ecommerce is a major initiative on the Internet. However, many potential e-customers who require the use of assistive computer technology will not be able conduct web transactions if the design of the content on the Internet does not accommodate the functional requirements of accessible Web page design.
Companies are spending large sums of money on infrastructure and technology to attract more consumers and improve the Internet users experience. These expenditures will not benefit millions of users if they are unable to take advantage of them due to content that is inaccessible by design. The term accessible needs to come to mean that when a user visits a Web site, they will be able to take advantage of the growth and innovation of the Internet regardless of their particular disability or the way they access Internet.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Internet has become a place of public accommodation. Many state and local governments are transitioning to the Internet to process a variety of administrative services such as license renewals and to receive and send information via e-mail to facilitate constituent communications. If we are making these transitions using taxpayer money, we must make sure that those who are paying for the transition can participate.
The US government has taken a leadership position by implementing accessibility guidelines aimed at ensuring that web sites operated by firms doing business with government agencies are fully usable by people with disabilities. Once implemented, these changes are likely to have sweeping affects on commercial sites as well.
The lack of accessibility of the Internet makes it difficult to count the number of people with disabilities who would like to use the Web. It is impossible to determine the numbers of individuals with disabilities that would like to take advantage of the web when they are being denied access and the resulting ability to be counted.
In the US Department of Commerce report ''The Growing Digital Divide In Access For People With Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers To Participation,'' the point is made that ''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.''
Technology innovation and the changing landscape of the web have had a substantial impact on the number of individuals who can access the Web. The widespread use of graphical images in content and advertising has resulted in a new problem for some disabled Web users. Until the last few years, 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 present a barrier if they do not incorporate accessible web design. In their practical guide to the information economy for executives and policymakers, ''Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy,'' authors Shapiro and Varian point out that ''[t]oday more than 60 percent of Internet traffic is to Web Sites, and of the Web traffic, almost three-fourths is images.'' Some users have resorted to turning the graphics feature of their browsers off. Many sites become essentially useless without the graphics because the site doesn't have enough information in text format to describe the graphic.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The effect of the lack of an accessible Web is not limited to people with visual and mobility disabilities. People with certain learning disabilities are also finding that they can no longer use screen readers with text to audio capabilities to access some Web sites. People with cognitive disabilities are having difficulty accessing the Web to the lack of navigation elements at Web sites. People with hearing disabilities cannot access the content of audio streaming and video clips that are posted on the Internet due to the absence of captioning.
Technology Issues
Many commercial web-authoring tools do not have the capability 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. This deficiency in these tools results in webmasters and application programmers not being exposed to technology that teaches them how to code an accessible web page. The problem is even more difficult for a Webmaster who is disabled. There is a serious lack of web authoring tools and applications that can be utilized by this population of individuals. Disabled developers can posses not only the skills necessary to create accessible pages, but the life experience that can possibly add insight into this process. This is especially true for webmasters and application developers with mobility disabilities requiring voice, eye tracking or keyboard input/output features in web authoring applications.
In the early days of the Internet, it was all text-based and universally accessible. The Web has now become a place full of graphical images, clicks, online forms, animated text, and music. These can all be obstacles to accessibility. People with limited or no physical mobility use a keyboard or voice input; those who are blind or visually impaired use a keyboard or voice input in combination with a text screen reader. A Web site that can't be navigated without a mouse, or does not contain a description in test format about the graphics will cause some of the disabled population to abandon efforts to view the content of a site.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A recent Internet news story about accessibility showed that many Web developers have a negative reaction to the idea of accessible design. This is based on their belief that these standards will limit their creativity. Accessibility techniques are not designed to limit the creativity of designer. The creation of accessible Web pages will allow more people to experience their creations. Developing an accessible Web site does mean a developer must abandon artistic presentation or professional look. The artistic nature of the site will not be affected if the site is created with text-only pages first. Once the text version is created and tested for accessibility, the images and other artistic design features can be added. The site will then be accessible to most screen readers and text to voice translators. Many web sites that have won awards for their designs are also fully accessible.
There is still a lack of knowledge among Internet professionals about how to realize the full potential of the Internet by providing access to the Web to people with disabilities. While tools are still lacking many features, there are affordable and easy-to-use tools available. These tools along with accessible design techniques can make Web sites dramatically more accessible to people with a variety of disabilities. The use of accessibility based design tools can make the information on a company web site available to the millions of people with disabilities.
The experts tend to agree that universal design is good for everyone. According to Kelly Pierce, the co-founder of ''Digit-Eyes,'' the Chicago blind computer users network, and who serves on the Techwatch committee for the National Council on Disability, ''when World Wide Web sites are accessible to people with disabilities, they are highly usable and accessible to everyone else as well.'' He continues: ''As the Web matures and grows in popularity, webmasters can be less and less certain that the visitor is using the latest version of Navigator or Explorer.'' In other words, accessible Web design also assures ''backwards compatibility'' with older Internet browser software. But it's not just older technology that benefits from good design. Many newer ways to access the Internet benefit greatly from universal design, ''people may be online with their Palm Pilot, or on Web TV, or browsing using their telephone. The closer companies and other organizations design their sites to HTML standards, the more accessible they are to people with disabilities and everyone else,'' says Pierce.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many examples of the need to address the non-conventional methods of accessing the web. Smart Cards are a good example of such a requirement. 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.
Household Appliances are yet another example. 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 brailed 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.
What Is Available Today?
There are many companies that are developing technical solutions that will assist disabled users on the Web. A few examples of these types of initiatives are:
IBM has been a leader in the development of products that address the needs of the disabled community. These products include the Healthy Computing—Keyboard, IBM Healthy Computing Ergonomics Accessories, Screen Reader/2 Languages, FTP for Home Page Reader, IBM PC DOS: PC DOS for Special Needs, Screen Magnifier/2, and SpeechViewer III, which is a powerful speech and language tool that transforms spoken words and sounds into imaginative graphics.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FutureForms, Inc. a division of Pummill Business Forms, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, introduced Verbal-eyes (patent pending), a new assistive technology software which enables visually impaired persons to fill out forms online. Since many visually impaired persons use a screen reader, the Verbal-eyes program is designed to scan the user's PC to determine if a screen reader is present and active. If a screen reader is active, the software will actually decipher the form on the screen for the user. If no screen reader is active, then the software will remain quiet and allow the user to complete the form. The Verbal-eyes program was mentioned by Business Week magazine as one of the most promising new products for the year 2000. For additional information on Verbal-eyes (patent pending) and other electronic form solutions, visit www.futureforms.com or www.pummill.com and link to FutureForms.
Adobe has indicated they are committed to making PDF documents accessible. Adobe is analyzing what needs to be added to or fixed in the PDF language definition to support the WAI Accessibility Guidelines. Adobe is also developing their own accessibility guidelines for PDF authoring tools. They have posted an early version of these guidelines on http://access.adobe.com/.
Microsoft has been making accessibility a consideration at every phase of the software development process. Microsoft's Accessibility and Disabilities Group works closely with their product developers, as well as with disability advocates, to ensure that accessibility features are included in Microsoft products. Microsoft's products contain features designed specifically for people with disabilities. Windows 98, Office 2000, the Internet Explorer feature in Windows, and the soon-to-be-released Windows 2000 all contain features that make them usable by people with a variety of disabilities. For example, Windows 98 includes an Accessibility Wizard for easier screen, keyboard and navigation customization. Microsoft Windows 2000 features several useful new accessibility tools, such as the Narrator, On-screen Keyboard and Magnifier to help people with disabilities who do not have full-featured accessibility aids available.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are several browsers that have been specifically designed for people with disabilities. Some examples include:
AVANTI Browser: Developed by the AVANTI Project, this browser provides for some of the diverse needs of elderly and disabled people and covers a range of disability-specific requirements.
BrookesTalk: This browser under development by Oxford Brookes University focuses on facilitating intelligent web searching. It also provides speech output, screen-magnification.
EIAD: A browser from Sarsfield Solutions, which provides enhancements specifically for people with special needs and learning difficulties. It provides touch-screen and a simplified language interface.
EMACSPEAK: The speech-enabled environment for EMACS, runs under UNIX or LINUX, includes full web browsing capabilities through W3. It provides speech output and a simple keyboard interface.
HomePage Reader: The speech-based browser from IBM, using Netscape as its engine. It provides speech output and a simple keyboard interface based on number-pad.
Marco Polo: A plug-in for Netscape Navigator from Sonicon with speech and auditory icons. It provides speech output, audio icons and a simple keyboard interface.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MultiWeb: Disability-specific browser developed at Deakin University. It provides speech output, screen magnification, and scanning for switch devices.
PwWebSpeak: The first and longest established low-vision browser from the Productivity Works. It provides speech output, synchronized speech and screen magnification, and simple keyboard interface.
Sensus Internet Browser: A low-vision Internet browser from Sensus in Denmark. It provides speech output, Braille support, and special screen fonts.
Simply Web 98: A talking interface using the Internet Explorer engine. It provides speech output and a simple keyboard interface.
VIP InfoNet: A low--vision browser from JBliss Inc. It provides screen magnification and speech output.
A screen-reader is used to allow navigation of the screen presented by the operating system, using speech or Braille output, and should therefore enable use of any mainstream application. In the context of browsing this usually means that they are used in conjunction with Netscape, Microsoft Internet Explorer, or, less often, with one of the other non-disability-specific browsers such as LYNX and Opera.
ASAW from Microtalk: (DOS, Windows 95/98) speech.
HAL from Dolphin: (DOS, Windows 95/98 and NT) speech and Braille.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JAWS For Windows from Henter-Joyce: (DOS, Windows 95/98 and NT) speech and Braille.
OutSpoken from Alva: (Windows 95/98, Macintosh) speech and Braille.
Simply Talker from Econonet: (Windows 95/98) speech.
Slimware Window Bridge from Synthavoice: (DOS, Windows 3.x and 95/98) speech and Braille.
Window-Eyes from GWMicro: (DOS, Windows 3.x and 95/98) speech.
WinVision from Artic: (Windows 3.x and 95/98) speech.
There are many browsers with adaptive technology. These browsers are all designed for general use, but are of interest because they may give enhanced accessibility in combination with particular adaptive systems.
AMAYA: This is W3C's test-bed browser, implementing emerging web technologies. There are versions for Windows 95/98, Windows NT and UNIX.
ARACHNE: This is a graphical browser for MS–DOS.
LYNX: This is a popular text-based browser for UNIX, Windows 95/NT and MS–DOS allowing flexible and powerful text-based access from older platforms.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Net-Tamer: This package runs under MS–DOS and includes both text-based and graphical browsing capabilities.
Opera: This compact browser for Windows 95/98 offers enhanced keyboard navigation and screen magnification.
These are systems that allow voice-driven navigation, some with both voice-in and voice-out, and some allowing telephone-based web access.
ConversaWeb: Voice-activated browser that allows spoken selections of links using ''saycons''.
PwTelephone: A telephone-based browser using the telephone keypad as an interface to navigate suitably configured pages.
SpeecHTML: A subscription service from Vocalis, allowing a participating site to provide telephone access using voice commands.
TelWeb: An experimental telephone-based browser allowing access to any site using voice and dialed commands.
Web On Call: Voice-driven browser allowing telephone access to enabled sites.
Another effort at providing accessibility is the UIML specification that is available at http//www.uml.org. This specification embodies a new way to build user interfaces: The developer describes the interface once, no matter what kind of hardware or software the developer wants to run it on. It doesn't matter what device is used: a desktop PC, a handheld device, or something else. It doesn't matter what interface metaphor is used: a graphical user interface (GUI) or voice. It doesn't matter whether the developer wants the interface implemented in Java or another markup language (e.g., WML or SpeechML). UIML insulates interface developers from all of these through style sheets. With UIML a developer can create Java interfaces without writing Java code. A developer can make traditional GUI interfaces accessible to people with disabilities. The developer can maintain one source base that is deployed on many disparate devices.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps the most significant effort to provide accessibility guidelines is the effort at the World Wide Web Consortium. The Web Accessibility Initiative has been leading the effort in this area. On May 5, 1999 the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced the release of the ''Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 specification as a W3C Recommendation. This significant development provides a stable specification that has been reviewed and recommended by the W3C Membership as a tool for making web sites accessible. As Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web aptly states: ''The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.'' The W3C Recommendation is evidence of the W3C commitment to lead the way to full participation on the Web for everyone and is an important step since the launch of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) April 1997 in the County of Santa Clara, California. The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) recognizes the problem of barriers on the Web for people with disabilities and is committed to pursuing solutions through five primary activities:
Ensuring that Web technologies support accessibility
Developing guidelines for accessibility
Developing tools to evaluate and facilitate accessibility
Conducting education and outreach
Monitoring and engaging in research and development
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The WAI technical activity addresses technology, guidelines and tools coordinated through the International Program Office. For example, in the technology arena, WAI has identified the following areas for accessibility needs: HTML, Style Sheets, Multimedia, MathML, DOM, XML, Graphics, Mobile Access, and Internationalization. Currently there is a Protocols and Formats Working Group as well as an HTML/CSS Review Working Group. There has been an increasing interest in creating accessible Web sites particularly since the May 1999 release of W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, and a correspondingly greater demand for tools that produce accessible content. Implementation of ATAG 1.0 will contribute to the proliferation of accessible Web content. ''Most content on the web is created using authoring tools. If authoring tools seamlessly guide authors in creating accessible content, the wealth of information on the Web will become more accessible,'' said Jutta Treviranus, Chair of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and Director of the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre at the University of Toronto. ''Just as important, the Web as a means of expression should not be reserved for people without disabilities. These guidelines promote authoring tools that create content that is accessible, and authoring tools that are usable by people with disabilities, thereby cultivating a World Wide Web that we can all participate in.''
There are also resources available to assist sites in evaluating their sites accessibility. Some of the resources available are:
The W3C validator at: http://validator.w3.org/
Bobby at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST): http://www.cast.org/bobby/
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HTML Writers Guild (HWG) AWARE (Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education) site: http://aware.hwg.org/
Listed below are some resources that may be helpful in creating pages that are accessible.
Information on accessible Web page design and other issues can be found at: http://www.eskimo.com/jlubin/disabled/web-desi.htm.
Information about adaptive devices can be found at: http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/tech/techgloss.html
In addition to the resources listed, several activities have taken place that have advanced the issue of accessibility. These include:
The IBM Accessibility Center (formerly IBM Special Needs Systems) has developed a set of IBM Accessibility Guidelines.
Organized by MAIN, Goodwill Industries of Central Texas, Easter Seals, and Knowbility-AIR-Austin made the high tech community sit up and take notice as some of the city's most talented folks signed on to design web sites for more than twenty nonprofit groups—in one day!
More than 175 people on 22 teams participated in AIR-Austin, the annual web competition sponsored by IBM, Powershift Group, Infotec, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, and Applied Materials.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Application of the ADA to the Internet
While there are a number of potential ways to regulate accessibility of information technologies, these generally fall into three categories.
Government can establish that individuals with disabilities have a right to certain kinds of information.
Government can require that products or services sold within a country must meet certain criteria for accessibility.
Government can require that information technologies and information services procured by entities such as government agencies must be accessible.
The first approach that regulates access to certain kinds of information by individuals with disabilities as a civil right, such as in Australia, Canada, and the United States is more common. However, sometimes we see combinations of these approaches, or, as in the United States, all three approaches in effect. Recently, as in Portugal and Thailand, there are efforts to introduce legislation directly requiring Web accessibility. As the Web becomes an increasingly important medium for education, employment, commerce, and government, the trend is towards requiring that this technology to be accessible to people with disabilities who constitute a significant part of every country's population.
The newly revised Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 now imposes strict accessibility requirements for electronic and information technology developed, maintained, procured, or used by federal agencies. As part of the Section 508 implementation effort, on April 2, 1999 Attorney General Janet Reno directed that all federal agencies conduct self-evaluations of their electronic and information technology and report by June 15, 1999 the extent to which their electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities. This Section 508 compliance package includes a number of accessibility checklists for software, web page, information technology machines, (ITM) and information technology (IT) equipment as well as a Resource Guide.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The definition of electronic and information technology under Section 508 includes: computers, hardware, software, web pages, facsimile machines, copiers, telephones and other equipment used for transmitting, receiving, using or storing information. It is expected that by February 7, 2000 the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) will issue standards that will define what is meant by electronic and information technology and will set forth the technical and functional performance criteria for accessibility implementation.
The evolution of our disability rights laws have resulted in the understanding that access to information and communication is a civil right for people with disabilities. Some of the current federal statutes and their implementing regulations that protect this civil right include:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (Tech Act
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA)
Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Act
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 121 of the U.S. Copyright Law
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ADA compliance should not be the only reason to make a web site fully accessible. While some baseline regulation can be effective in identifying a need for industry to accept certain practices, it can also have the effect of slowing technology innovation. Industry may become transfixed on addressing the requirements of compliance rather than ''thinking out of the box''. Solutions may be rushed to market that do not have the quality that would come from a well-engineered product. While there is little argument that the current state of accessibility of the Web is not adequate, industry has made substantial progress in this area. Application of the ADA in its current form, without taking into consideration the progress made to date, could result in companies doing just what is necessary to comply to the law instead of furthering the advancement of technology.
Many sites will focus on avoiding litigation instead of addressing the real need of disabled net citizens to have access to the valuable content they provide. The cost of potential litigation could prevent some web sites from coming online. The application of the ADA to the Internet should not occur until industry has been given an opportunity to address the issues of accessibility in a commercial and competitive environment. Incentives for early adopters of accessible technology might increase the speed at which this occurs.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before the ADA is applied to the Web, the state of current technology should be considered. A period of discussion and review should occur and appropriate amendments made to the existing ADA legislation that reflects the specific requirements of the Internet.
Why Should Industry Respond?
Industry must begin to understand why accessibility important to Web based companies. There are many sound business reasons why web site should care about accessibility. Providing accessible sites is a way to add tens of millions of potential customers, as well as their friends, their relatives, and their employers. According to Microsoft, studies show that each person with a disability has an average of five people who care about, them, and people tend to purchase software that works for the people they care about. I hope that we can all agree that an economic motive would work better rather than the threat of legal action based on a legislative initiative.
Many companies want a standard configuration that works for everyone, including staff members with disabilities. Accessible design also improves general usability. People feel more comfortable and are more likely to enjoy what they're doing when the software lets them work the way they choose. Screens that are easy to read and controls that are easy to manipulate make it easier for everyone. They are just more important for people with disabilities.
In fact, many things that we all have grown to appreciate started out specifically for people with disabilities. The ramps cut into curbs, easy-open containers, and even the bell and light that tell you when the elevator is arriving are just a few examples of the conveniences that we use every day.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A Call To Action
The continued practice of the inaccessible design of Internet web sites, Internet Service Providers, browsers, and ecommerce sites must be addressed before it is too late to allow many individuals with disabilities to take advantage of the digital economy. Technology is not the issue. There are new and exciting developments in the fields of information appliances, real-time conference participation, audio streaming, telephone voice browsers, search engines, news groups, chat rooms and 3–D imaging. If the ubiquitous deployment and acceptance of web design and development solutions that support the issue of accessibility and are not embraced soon, the digital divide may become impossible to bridge.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, signed into law in 1990, requires that government provide individuals with disabilities access to public places. This has resulted in the construction of new ramps, wider doorways, new elevators and Braille signs where needed. All of these allow and even encourage everyone to participate in the services these facilities provide. The Internet should also encourage and invite everyone to participate in the growth and future of the Web.
We have found ways to design buildings so that people who use wheelchairs can navigate doorways and enter buildings that were once inaccessible to them. Using our collective intelligence and a willingness to work towards a common goal, there are ways to assist our citizens with disabilities in their use of online communications. The techniques and tools are readily available to help create a Web that is flexible enough to meet the needs and preferences of the broadest range of users of computers and telecommunications equipment for our citizens with disabilities. Many of these disabled Web users use are also prospective customers, employees, and participants in online communities.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the Internet becomes critically important to the daily lives of more people, as society creates greater opportunities to learn, to work, and to pursue leisure activities on the World Wide Web, we can't afford to exclude anyone with a desire to take advantage of this rich and rewarding experience. Especially when the means to include them is within our grasp.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
Ms. Brewer.
STATEMENT OF JUDY BREWER, DIRECTOR, WEB ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVE (WAI) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE, WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C)
Ms. BREWER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Judy Brewer. I am director of the Web Accessibility Initiative International Program Office at the World Wide Web Consortium. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Web accessibility. A consensus regarding Web accessibility solutions has developed over the past several years among leaders in Web industry, user representatives and accessibility researchers.
The World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, has released two Web accessibility guidelines to date. A third is close to being finalized. Web accessibility solutions are generally inexpensive and easy to implement. They represent essentially good Web design. Web accessibility solutions bring more people onto the Web, stimulating commerce. They support the full range of creative and innovative design that draws users to the Web. They do not alter the content of Web sites.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To quote Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web and Director of the W3C, ''The Web excels as a medium in which accessibility can be addressed. On the Web a computer can automatically and cost effectively represent the same information in a variety of ways according to the needs of users. Within the neutral forum of W3C, industry leaders, disability representatives and others have convened to develop accessibility solutions that are reasonable, practical and effective. Web sites designed using very simple tools naturally tend to be accessible. Even sophisticated sites designed with major effort can be kept accessible with only a small proportion of that effort.''
W3C is the international vendor neutral body that develops technologies for the Web. It has nearly 400 member organizations, primarily Web industry leaders, that come together to keep the Web an interoperable and universal information medium. It has four domains, Architecture, User Interface, Technology and Society and the Web Accessibility Initiative.
The Web is information, it is commerce, education, employment opportunity and entertainment. Part of the work of W3C is to enable all users to benefit from this information medium. Companies that forget to design for accessibility inadvertently throw away part of their market plans but they also fail to prepare for the future. By the year 2001, less than 50 percent of Web access will be from traditional desktop computers. Web access from mobile phones, palm-top devices, the living room TV and the dashboard of the car all require many of the same solutions as does accessibility. Accessibility fits well within the overall context of Web development. In order to be able to use any information medium, we need common conventions on how to communicate with each other.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If one were to frame every comment with an unintelligible prefix, it would distract from whatever substance one might say. Likewise, if this testimony were wholly made up of images and no text, it would be difficult for many to understand and one would justly feel that the business of this hearing had not been well-served. Yet that is the current state of the Web for many users today. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are prioritized by importance so that designers can focus on items that are most essential for accessibility and obtain the highest return on investment.
Since much of Web accessibility is a matter of good design, the cost for accessibility on many sites is negligible. Simple sites may require only a few words of alternative text or images. On complex commercial sites, content is frequently generated by scripts from a database which can be set up to generate accessible information in place of inaccessible information. On sites with extensive multimedia, captioning of audio and description of video involves minimal production cost and server space compared to production of the multimedia itself. Redesigns for accessibility of Web sites can be addressed in an organization's periodic site redesigns, absorbing the cost of retrofitting and would not require tearing down many pages on the Web, as I am sure you may hear in another panel this afternoon.
Myths persist about what is required by Web accessibility. For instance, that every Web page should have a text only version and that this is burdensome to Web site designers. Not only is this not true, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines strongly discourage the use of text-only pages for accessibility, but were it a recommendation it would be trivial to accomplish with many of today's authoring tools which generate customized presentations of content from the same database.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are several reasons that companies choose to get involved in Web accessibility. The demographics of the disability marketplace and the carryover benefits to other users from accessible design do contribute to interest in Web accessibility, but in an industry with intense competition these factors can sometimes be insufficient to lead to a critical mass of involvement or an implementation of Web accessibility.
The presence of several regulatory processes in the background has appeared to stimulate parties to come to the table who have not previously been involved in accessibility, and enabled other individuals already working on accessibility within companies to leverage more attention and implementation commitments from their colleagues. We need continued encouragement in a variety of forums for involvement and implementation of Web accessibility. We do not need myths.
You may hear fears that Web accessibility will bring the Internet industry to a screeching halt. I would note that the Department of Justice opinion in September 1996 already stated that the ADA applies to the Web and the past 3 years hardly stand out as struggling years for the Internet industry. Not one of the several hundred Web industry members of W3C has come up to me over the past 2 years and said that accessibility is ruining their business. Instead they come up and say our work is exemplary and that they are using it to improve and innovate their products in ways we haven't even considered. In an area where the pace of technology is so very rapid, lost ground is not easily made up. Let's not do anything to derail this progress. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brewer follows:]
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDY BREWER, DIRECTOR, WEB ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVE (WAI) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE, WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C)
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Judy Brewer.(see footnote 1) I am director of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)(see footnote 2) International Program Office, at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the issue of Web accessibility.
Overview
A consensus regarding Web accessibility solutions has developed over the past several years among leaders in Web industry, user representatives, and accessibility researchers. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has released two Web accessibility guidelines to date; a third is in an implementation testing period and close to being finalized.
Web accessibility solutions are generally inexpensive and easy to implement. They represent, essentially, good Web design. They are consistent with the evolving nature of the Web and reinforce the Web's ability to work across a multitude of different kinds of devices and purposes.
Web accessibility solutions bring more people onto the Web, stimulating commerce. They support the full range of creative and innovative design that draws users to the Web. There is a strong business case for accessibility, based on disability demographics; and a strong business case based on the benefits for all users that derive from accessibility solutions.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To quote Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web and director of the W3C, ''The Web excels as a medium in which accessibility can be addressed. On the Web, a computer can automatically and cost-effectively represent the same information in a variety of ways according to the needs of users. Within the neutral forum of W3C, industry leaders, disability representatives, and others convened to develop accessibility solutions that are reasonable, practical, and effective. Web sites designed using very simple tools naturally tend to be accessible. Even sophisticated sites, designed with major effort, can be kept accessible with only a small proportion of that effort.''
There is more work to be done to make the Web more accessible; but we already have a solid foundation of feasible solutions, with broad industry and disability community support.
The World Wide Web Consortium and Web Accessibility
W3C is the international vendor-neutral consortium that develops technologies for the Web. It has nearly 400 Member organizations, primarily Web industry leaders that come together to keep the Web an interoperable and universal information medium.
The W3C has four domains: Web Architecture, User Interface, Technology and Society, and the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI addresses accessibility on the level of core Web technologies, guidelines development, tools development, education and outreach, and monitoring of research and development. WAI receives support not only from general W3C Member funds but from the US government, European Commission, Government of Canada, and several industry supporters, including IBM/Lotus, Microsoft, and Bell Atlantic.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Role of the Web in Current Society
The Web is information; it is commerce, education, employment opportunity, and entertainment. It has more resources than the best research library in the world, and more jobs posted than any newspaper. It has resources that foster civic participation and community-building. The Web has rapidly assumed an enormous role in society. In the U.S., it is one of the driving engines of our economy, and has become our daily workplace. The W3C's Recommendations seek to enable all users to benefit from this information medium.
To be relevant in this economy—in today's information society—one needs good access to the Web. People with disabilities, already underemployed and unemployed at some of the highest rates in society, are a user group that needs access to this medium.
At the same time, our economy cannot afford the absence of their participation. With close to 20% of the US population having disabilities, and many of those disabilities affecting access to information—including visual, hearing, physical, and cognitive disabilities, as well as the changing abilities of seniors—companies that forget to design for accessibility inadvertently throw away part of their marketplace.
Companies that fail to design for accessibility also fail to prepare for the future. By 2001, less than 50% of Web access will be from traditional desk-top computers. We are seeing an explosion of access from mobile phones, palm-top devices, the living room TV, and the dashboard of the car—all devices which require many of the same solutions as does accessibility.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An Overview of Web Accessibility Issues
I provide a brief overview here of accessibility issues for people with different kinds of disabilities. Implementation of W3C guidelines provides comprehensive solutions to all of these issues.
People with visual disabilities often use speech output, braille output, or screen magnification to access computers. On the Web, graphics and video that are labeled or described and tables and frames that are properly encoded enable users to access Web content regardless of visual disability. Audio that is captioned similarly becomes accessible to people who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Software that has keyboard alternatives for mouse-driven commands can be used by people with physical disabilities who might have difficulty using a mouse, as well as by people with visual disabilities. A consistent navigation structure within Web sites can substantially facilitate access for users with visual, cognitive, or physical disabilities.
Complementary Web Accessibility Solutions
Some solutions apply at the level of the information on a Web page, what we call ''Web content.'' For instance, alternative text for images is already required in standard code for Web content. Others solutions apply at the level of Web browsers (such as Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, or Opera) for instance by providing keyboard support for mouse commands and easily-locatable directions on how to use accessibility features that are built into browsers.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yet other solutions apply at the level of the core Web technologies—the code used in Web pages and browsers. The Web Accessibility Initiative reviews scores of technologies under development at W3C starting from the design stage, to ensure that they provide the support needed for accessibility. W3C has therefore provided a firm technological foundation for accessibility, for instance by ensuring that multimedia presentation languages can encode captions for audio, or that standard micropayment links used for E-Commerce will notify the user of obligated payments even when the user cannot see the screen.
Additional solutions involve improving the way assistive technologies such as screen readers, which produce speech or braille output from Web pages, work with browsers.
People often ask whether there is a magic bullet for Web accessibility—something that every one of the millions of people with different kinds of disabilities could buy, be given, obtain as shareware or obtain via some gateway on the Web—so that they could access everything on the Web without Web designers ever having to think about accessibility. Not only does this unlikely scenario have a much smaller chance of success than the complementary and pragmatic solutions described above, but it would mean that the benefits of accessible design for the Web as a whole would be lost.
Accessibility and the Evolution of Web Technologies
Accessibility fits well within the overall context of Web development. In order to be able to use an information medium, we need common conventions on how to communicate with each other. For the Web, at the most fundamental level one needs three things: a common way to request and send information over the internet—HTTP; a common way to put together documents so that we can all read them—HTML; and a common way of knowing where documents are—URL's.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Consider what happens when people talk together about business, education, or family or community matters. Without common conventions for talking to each other, communication would come to a halt. If one were to frame every comment with an unintelligible prefix, it would distract from whatever substance one might say. Likewise, if this testimony were wholly made up of images and no text, it would be difficult for many to understand, and one would justly feel that the business of this hearing had not been well-served. Yet that is the current state of the Web for many users today.
When communication is impaired in a business environment by failure to use common conventions, commerce is compromised. If communication stops even for only a group of participants in a business environment, two things happen: those participants are excluded from commerce; and the commercial sector loses the benefit of their participation.
The Web started with just three common conventions: HTTP, HTML, and URL's. As the Web has evolved, it has come to include more and more complex ways to control the appearance and encode the information in Web sites. When designers use Web technologies in non-standard ways, it reduces the potential for information to be understood by other parties, and undermines the role of the Web as a universal information medium.
Along with the evolution of more complex Web technologies, new methods of user access are also evolving. Palm-top devices, mobile phones, TV access to the Web—all these Web devices demand flexibility in how information can be accessed. We call this ''device independence'' of information. In the Web economy of the very near future, Web information will need to be available via any kind of device. Accessibility, because it requires flexibility of information presentation, provides one of the best paths to device-independence.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to maximize the potential of the Web's future for our economy and society, accessibility is therefore an inherent part of the common conventions that we use on the Web.
Three Web Accessibility Guidelines
W3C's Web accessibility guidelines describe the common conventions that enable Web accessibility. There are three guidelines: for Web sites; for the software that Web site designers use when they build Web sites, which we call ''authoring tools''; and for browsers.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, released in May 1999, explain how to make Web sites accessible enough that people with disabilities can use them with today's technologies. These guidelines were released with the support of industry leaders, as well as support from disability organizations internationally, access research organizations, and governments interested in ensuring that information on the Web is accessible.
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, released in February 2000, provide guidance to developers of software used to build Web sites, so that software will automatically ensure accessibility of much of the code used on Web sites, and so it can better repair sites that aren't accessible. These guidelines were released also with support from industry leaders and from many organizations internationally.
The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines explain how to make browsers and multimedia players more accessible, and how to make them work better with some of the assistive technology that people with disabilities use. These guidelines entered W3C's Candidate Recommendation status in January, 2000, and are expected to go to the nearly 400 Members of the W3C for final review in February or March of 2000.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Implementations of either of the Web software guidelines (the latter two guidelines) make it easier for Web designers to implement the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. For instance, as browsers develop more capabilities to support accessibility, Web site designers need to do less to make their pages accessible. Likewise, as authoring tools automate more of the production of accessible Web content, site designers will be able to produce accessible Web sites with little effort.
Costs Involved in Implementing Web Accessibility
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are prioritized by importance, so that developers can focus on items that are most essential for accessibility to obtain the highest return on investment.
Since much of Web accessibility is a matter of good design, the cost for accessibility on many sites is negligible. Small and simple sites may require only a few words of alternative text for images—which is required for standard code in any case by HTML 4.0, released back in December 1997. On more complex commercial sites, content is frequently generated by scripts from a database, and these sites can be set up to generate accessible information instead of inaccessible information. On sites that have extensive multi-media, captioning of audio and description of video involves minimal production cost compared to production of the multimedia itself, and the size of the captions or descriptions is negligible compared to the size of the audio or video files themselves. Re-designs for accessibility of Web sites can typically be addressed within an organization's periodic site designs, absorbing the cost of retrofitting.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Myths persist about what is required by Web accessibility—for instance, that every Web page should have a text-only version of the page, and that this is burdensome to Web sites designers. Not only is this not true—the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines strongly discourage the use of text-only pages for accessibility, for a number of reasons—but were it in fact a recommendation, it would be trivial to accomplish with many of today's authoring tools which can generate customized presentations of content from the same database.
Progress and Involvement to Date
We have seen strong interest and appreciation for WAI's work from a large number of companies. Involvement and implementation have followed from a smaller number of organizations.
The single most important need right now is for implementations of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. As of the recent release of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, there were public commitments from several authoring tool developers to make their products support the guidelines, and another half-dozen developers have indicated confidentially that they are already working on implementations of these guidelines. But there are hundreds of different tools used to generate content for the Web. If a majority of these tools facilitated the creation of accessible content as described by the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, there would very quickly be an enormous increase in the amount of accessible content on the Web.
There are several reasons that companies choose to get involved in Web accessibility. Two factors that are frequently mentioned include the demographics of the disability marketplace, and the carry-over benefits from accessible design, such as with the greater server efficiency and maintainability of sites which use Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) to control the appearance of sites.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But in an industry with intense competition, for many companies these factors can be insufficient to lead to a critical mass of involvement in or implementation of Web accessibility. The presence of several regulatory processes in the background appears to have stimulated parties to come to the table who have not previously been involved in accessibility, and enabled other parties already working on accessibility within companies to leverage more attention and implementation commitments from product divisions that they work with.
Conclusion
Encouragement of involvement and implementation of Web accessibility solutions would contribute to progress on Web accessibility. In an area where the pace of technology is so rapid, lost ground is not easily made up.
This statement has described the nature of Web accessibility issues; approaches to developing accessibility solutions; and the status of involvement and implementation by industry. We need a continuation of the good work of the broad forum of organizations involved in developing Web solutions, so that the Web can move forward as a technology that serves all.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Ms. Brewer.
Ms. Conway.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF SUSYN CONWAY, RESTON, VIRGINIA
Ms. CONWAY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Susyn Conway. I am an independent consultant for Internet marketing, research, design and production. I am also here as a representative of the U.S. Internet Industry Association.
The World Wide Web has just entered hypergrowth stage, both attracting and challenging ordinary people in their millions on a daily basis. It is vast, complex, dynamic but most importantly it is still daunting to those of us who have been along for the whole ride. It is being wired and strung by people who want to deliver the latest technologies to people who really don't know how to use them. Just trying to get on to the Internet is a source of constant frustration to many home users trapped behind an outdated infrastructure that was deployed to carry telephone conversations. Only a fraction of the Internet is accessible now, even to people without disabilities. The number of pages and Web sites is multiplying exponentially, far outpacing the ability of any existing tools to catalog or index its contents.
Last July, NEC research reported that the most comprehensive search engine covered only 16 percent of the Internet. Taken all together, the top 11 search engines indexed only 42 percent. An August issue of Forbes Magazine underscored the exasperating experience of trying to search for something on the Web, then estimated at 400 million Web pages. This is expected to quadruple by 2002. Seventeen percent of sites in a recent study were deemed to be ''bad'' in that they could not be accessed at all. The high performance Internet is several years away and will require an estimated $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending by 2003 to make it happen.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
New regulations imposed on companies engaged in developing this channel into a more reliable, better defined and manageable resource able to serve every segment of the society will only slow down the achievement of these goals. We have only begun to define in general terms how the Internet can serve a mainstream audience, much less the needs of handicapped Americans. Everybody involved in the Internet right now is at the low end of the learning curve. Tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on failed designs and Web sites that do not work as intended.
According to Forrester Research, sites drive away up to 40 percent of their repeat traffic by not making it easy for visitors to find the information they need. Even users without any disability find much of the Internet confusing to navigate and difficult to adapt for their individual needs. Every single Web site is unique. There are few common denominators that exist today. Every site uses different features, tools, navigation elements and functionality. Software changes on an almost daily basis and the adoption of better technology often lags because of the high cost involved in these constant changes.
The Internet is not a physical structure. It is not a facility for which some general disability-serving standards might be conceived and applied across the board. It is an assortment of sometimes conflicting technologies and business models in the trial-and-error mode. More serious consideration might be given as to the suitability of the ADA for the digital environment. In my opinion, compliance would most likely be very low, enforcement difficult and time-consuming. The industry is already moving toward making the Internet more accessible to Americans with disabilities, producing guidelines, tools and encouraging their adoption.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The W3C was founded to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols to promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. They are actively involved in conducting research, education and outreach.
The Center for Applied Special Technology was founded to expand opportunities for the disabled through innovative technology. Their Web-based program called Bobby is already helping designers make their sites accessible. I understand that there is still not much consensus regarding what accessibility really means or requires. It appears the industry is already moving independently without the impetus of Federal laws to address these issues. It would seem to me that Congress could more positively support the development of the Internet to serve all of its constituents by funding awareness programs which educate the marketplace on the buying power of a disabled community of some 50 million consumers. Funding might also be directed at establishing a special online community for disabled Americans and incentivizing private companies to populate it with their content, products and services.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Conway follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSYN CONWAY, RESTON, VA
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, good afternoon.
My name is Susyn Conway, and I am an independent consultant for Internet marketing, research, design and production. I am also here as a representative of the US Internet Industry Association.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The World Wide Web has entered hypergrowth stage, both attracting and challenging ''ordinary people'' in their millions on a daily basis. It's vast, complex, dynamic—but most importantly—daunting, even to those of us who have been along for the whole ride.
It's being wired and strung by people who want to deliver the very latest technologies to people who don't really know how to use them. Just trying to get ''on'' to the Internet is a source of constant frustration now to many home users trapped behind an out-dated infrastructure that was deployed to carry telephone conversations.
I) Only a fraction of the Internet is accessible now, even to people without disabilities.
The number of pages and websites is mutiplying exponentially; it has far outpaced the ability of any existing tools to catalog or index its contents. Last July NEC Research reported that the most comprehensive search engine of the time covered only 16% of the Internet. Taken all together, the top 11 search engines indexed only 42%.
An article in the August 23, 1999 issue of Forbes Magazine, which underscored the ''exasperating experience of trying to search for something on the Web'' estimated an existing 400 million Web pages, expected to quadruple by 2002. A study published in January indicates the Web now contains over a billion unique documents—and 4.5 million sites.
17% of these sites were deemed to be ''bad''—in that a communications or some other problem prevented access over a 10-day period. The dream of a ''high performance Internet'' is several years away and will require an estimated $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending by 2003 to make it happen.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
New regulations imposed on companies engaged in developing this channel into a more reliable, better defined and manageable resource—able to best serve every segment of our society—will only serve to slow down the achievement of these goals.
II) We have only begun to define in general terms how the Internet can serve a mainstream audience now coming online, much less the needs of handicapped Americans.
Everybody involved in the Internet right now, those trying to establish a new medium for their business, and those trying to utilize it—is at the low end of the learning curve.
It's an investment-intensive exercise for any company, just discovering what is required to make websites intuitive and easy to use for their particular audience or market segments. Millions, tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on failed designs and websites that do NOT work as intended.
According to Forrester Research, sites drive away up to 40% of repeat traffic by not making it easy for visitors to find the information they need. Even users without any disability find much of the Internet confusing to navigate and difficult to adapt for their individual needs.
Not every website publisher or business has the resources to conduct the continual performance monitoring that is required to improve usage value—to locate and eliminate interminable page downloads, oversized images, cluttered pages, broken links, coding errors, outdated content and other problems.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Every single website is unique. There are few common denominators that exist today. Every site uses different features, tools, navigation elements and functionality. Software changes almost daily, and distribution or adoption of new or better technology often lags due to the high costs involved in making constant changes.
The Internet is not a