State IT Accessibility Policy: The Landscape of Today

INTRODUCTION

Dramatic changes have occurred in recent years related to accessibility of information technology (IT) within state government. With the proliferation of web based services and the clamor for comprehensive e-government initiatives, accessibility for people with disabilities has become a critical issue for state IT policy makers. Supported by legislative imperatives at the federal level, such as Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, part of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, many states have embarked on their own IT accessibility policy development and implementation.

While state initiatives have certainly been influenced by federal activities, states face unique and varied challenges to IT accessibility based on state organizational structures and resource availability. For most states, the integral players in IT accessibility policy development and implementation are the office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the purchasing office (PO), and the state assistive technology (AT) program. Each of these entities brings to the table a unique perspective regarding IT accessibility policy development and each is likely to have a different role in the implementation of policy decisions. In addition, each states IT development oversight and IT purchasing structure can range from highly centralized to highly decentralized which in turns creates different demands on policy implementation.

Despite state variability, there are emerging patterns in IT accessibility policies when analyzed throughout the country. States are watching and learning from the federal government and from each other as they continue to develop and implement these policies.

WEB ACCESSIBILITY

By far the most common area in which states have developed and implemented IT access policies is in web accessibility. Over the past several years, states have embraced the concept of e-government/e-commerce as a means to increase the availability of services and information for citizens, businesses and government. Web accessibility, along with security and privacy, has emerged as an integral element of the e-government effort.

The establishment of a centralized coordinating entity (Offices of the Chief Information Officer) responsible for information technology has been a ground-breaking accomplishment at the state and federal level, with most state CIO offices having only been established within the past ten years. The Office of the CIO is charged with the authority to establish statewide information technology policies and services. Their efforts have often focused on convening multiple agencies within their state, which previously had independent authority to determine how to handle their IT function and needs, to garner support and the implementation of common protocols to promote consistency, interoperability, privacy and security. Over the years, states approaches to web development policies and standards or guidelines have been varied. Efforts at the CIOs level resulting in the adoption of common infrastructure and protocols have carried over to web site development. Many states have adopted a common look and feel approach to web site development. This approach is seen as a successful way to ensure that users know that they are accessing a state web site, improving usability, and increasing efficiency for agencies and staff to maintain the web site. Within the framework of a common look and feel states have developed criteria for agencies, consultants or subcontractors to follow in developing and presenting materials via the web. A 2001-2002 study of states IT accessibility initiatives, conducted by the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) at Georgia Tech, in collaboration with RESNA, the Association of Tech Act Projects (ATAP), the University of Iowa College of Law, and the NYS Office for Technology revealed that accessibility standards or criteria, along with guidelines for privacy and security are often a component of this framework and have been promoted as a seamless approach. The results of this study can be accessed at http://www.ittatc.org/laws/stateLawAtGlance.cfm

Recognition of the need to make web sites accessible has emerged consistently across the nation. Efforts resulting in increased web accessibility have been driven by growing awareness of the World Wide Web Consortium(W3C), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG); the revision of 508 and the promulgation of 508 standards; advocacy efforts and industry response resulting in the availability of web development, testing and repair tools.

The availability of standards and guidelines has had a dramatic effect on acceptance. However, the co-existence of the W3C guidelines and 508 standards has also resulted in confusion and lack of clarity in some state approaches. While substantially similar in content, the W3C, WCAG 1.0 and 508 web standards do differ. The WCAG 1.0 guidelines utilize a three priority level approach whereas 508 relies on a single set of minimum standards. The content of many of the 508 standards align, but are not identical with W3C priority one guidelines, and other 508 standards have some relationship to priority two or three guidelines.

From a review of state web sites, it appears that several states identified the adoption of 508 in their statute, policy or accessibility statement, yet adopted standards or verification processes based upon the W3C, WCAG 1.0. In a few instances the states noted that they were adopting Level 1 of 508; clearly reflecting a confusion between the priority level system used by W3C and the minimum standards of 508.

In addition, there is evidence of confusion with regard to 508 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Clearly 508 statute and rules include requirements for web accessibility. On the other hand, the ADA is not so specific. Some argue that the ADA does requires web accessibility as part of its equal access and effective communication requirements, while others take the position that access to web information may be provided through mechanisms other than direct web accessibility. Regardless of interpretation, the ADA does not currently have a required set of web access standards. So states citing adoption of ADA web access standards reflect a misunderstanding of ADA and 508.

Regardless, the desire of the states to promote accessibility is evident by the number of states that have adopted accessibility measures. Since 1996 committees, entities and individuals at the state level have been considering and advocating for the need to commit to accessibility and identify vehicles to ensure that state entities reflect the states commitment. After the year 2000, the number of states formalizing efforts to ensure web accessibility flourished. This effort can be attributed to the promulgation of the final 508 regulations and the increased awareness of the W3C guidelines.

Based on a web search of States web sites, such as states Portal Page, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Procurement Office, State Legislature, it appears that every state and the District of Columbia have adopted an accessibility measure. A number of states have adopted state laws requiring information technology accessibility. While some of the state statutes specify standards and procurement requirements, others require the state to develop and adopt standards for implementation. Several of the states listed in the table below have a state IT accessibility law and have adopted specific web access policies and standards. In some cases, the standards have been adopted as a part of the states technical architecture. Two states have issued Executive Orders, while a large number of states (20) have issued policies requiring web accessibility. Several states have issued an accessibility statement clarifying their intent to make information accessible and in some cases they have included guidelines or best practices. Six states have issued web accessibility standards or guidelines without a companion policy. The table below is a simplified method to see how states have approached accessibility requirements, but does not necessarily reflect the full scope of states efforts. Although listed once, many states have adopted laws, policies and standards and could therefore be listed in several of the table categories.

Clearly, the majority of states have utilized a policy approach to institutionalizing accessibility across state agencies. It is unclear from a paper review the reasons supporting the policy development approach versus the adoption of state statutes. While some states adopted standards, others have adopted guidelines or best practices. In some cases, contrary to generally accepted understanding of the differences between standards and guidelines, it appears that guidelines are presented as a requirement versus voluntary guidance. Of the states searched, 14 have adopted the 508 web accessibility standards; 18 have adopted the W3C, WCAG, 4 have adopted a hybrid of 508 and the W3C; while 7 states have adopted state-defined standards or guidelines which are based on the W3C and 508, but also include other state standards. Texas allows their agencies to choose which standard to utilize in meeting the states accessibility policy; South Carolina does not specify standards or guidelines; and it is unclear which standard West Virginia adopted. The majority of the states that have adopted the W3C have adopted the Priority Level 1; about 5 states have either adopted or encourage their agencies to comply with levels 2 and 3 of the W3C.

Web accessibility is an evolutionary process. Many states have instituted practices including live-training, web-based training and the identification of other resources, to address the need for skill development to ensure successful implementation of the laws or policies. While some states have developed focused web accessibility training, others have customized web training to provide information on accessibility requirements and strategies in a seamless manner as part of other web development training. To date, a few states have instituted clear requirements for testing and validation, specific procurement requirements, compliance deadlines and/or penalties for non-compliance. While some states have chosen to make the coordinating or liaison responsibility part of their states Americans with Disabilities Act Office functions, others maintain the responsibility as part of the Office of the CIO.

States have taken unique and diverse approaches to addressing web accessibility by adopting and array of strategies (law, policies, statements) and standards (W3C, 508, hybrids and state-developed). This variance carries over to the scope of applicability. In some states, the requirements apply only to state agencies, authorities, and commissions or those entities under the authority of the Governor. In some cases, the requirements not only apply to entities under the control of the Governor, but to state universities as well. In rare cases, the policies, etc. are also applied to local school districts (e.g. Arkansas).

The promotion and adoption of web accessibility policies and practices at the state level have benefited from the existence of web access standards and guidelines. The immersion of these strategies into state practices have directly benefited from the e-Government/e-Commerce activities at the state level. Citizen and user awareness and advocacy have also contributed to the recognition of the benefits of these policies and practices. Overall, states have realized that web accessibility like architectural accessibility, benefits many users including those with and without disabilities.

PROCUREMENT

When compared to web accessibility, far fewer states have tackled the issue of procurement of accessible IT products and most have done so by statute rather than policy alone. Currently, fifteen states are known to have statutes that address the procurement of accessible IT in some fashion and one additional state has a policy which does so.

Nine of these state laws originated from the model state legislation promoted by the National Federation of the Blind (Minnesota, Maryland, Texas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Virginia, Colorado, Montana and Arkansas). In almost all instances however, the original language of the bill was substantially altered by the time the law actually passed. A common thread of these bills is an access clause which must be included in state contracts which in turn requires conformance with non-visual access standards. In some statutes, an entity in the state was charged with development and adoption of IT access standards; in other instances, IT access standards were not specifically addressed. While no definitive outcome data has been collected, it appears that the inclusion of the access clause, absent adoption of standards and a mechanism to judge conformance to those standards, has probably had less impact than desired on end IT purchasing decisions.

Five states passed more broadly focused IT access procurement legislation (cross disability rather than just non-visual access) patterned after the federal Section 508 statute language. In three of these states (Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana) the law designates a specific entity responsible for IT access standards adoption. These three state laws also provide an undue burden exclusion similar to that provided in Section 508. In California, the statute wholly adopts the Section 508 access standards by reference and does not directly stipulate any exclusion for undue burden, unless it is to be interpreted as included by reference to the Section 508 standards. In Louisiana, the statute is limited to requiring procurement of accessible IT for state employees and includes an exemption for appropriation constraints.

Maine adopted a policy, rather than statute, that addresses cross disability IT procurement. This policy includes software accessibility standards adapted from those developed by the US Department of Education prior to Section 508 standards finalization. In lieu of undue burden, Maine allows for waivers of the policy to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Lastly, North Carolina passed cross disability IT access legislation as an expansion of that states non-discrimination law. Unlike the other states who directly address procurement of IT products, this statute adapts ADA-like language requiring the provision of reasonable aids and adaptations needed for access to equivalent services provided via information technology. No IT access standards are specifically addressed in the statute and undue hardship (defined similarly to the ADA) is provided as an exclusion rather than undue burden.

These laws vary dramatically in who is covered by the statute. Some cover only state agencies, others cover all entities in the state supported with state funds, and others simply reference the state with no clarifying language. One exempts a specific state university and another is limited to only state agency employees.

The most challenging issue facing states with procurement laws or policies has been the task of IT access standards adoption and the development and implementation of procedures to verify conformance with those standards. Most states that have moved forward on the issue of standards adoption have done so by adapting standards already in place. This approach is exemplified by Maines adaptation of the US Department of Education software access standards and Missouris adaptation of the Section 508 standards. However, state procurement offices have quickly learned that standards adoption must be accompanied by procedures for verification of conformance to those standards. Without a systematic conformance verification process, the access requirements can quickly become part of a mountain of vendor product documentation or contract boilerplate language that has a minimal role in purchasing decision-making.

Two distinct approaches to standards conformance seem to be emerging from states engaged in these efforts. One is based on an assurance approach where the vendor assures conformance with adopted standards and assumes liability for identification and correction of any non-conformance. The second approach is based on the state assuming responsibility for product and information review to determine conformance with adopted access standards with the state retaining liability for purchasing decisions.

Understandably, the first approach is very attractive to states because it is administratively easy to implement and requires little in state resources. However the IT industry has made it clear that they believe states are responsible for implementing these laws and should assume liability for standards conformance review. For states to implement such reviews, state purchasers need a great deal of staff expertise, time, and perhaps access to AT devices to do hands on product testing which translates into resources and dollars that are not readily available to most states at this time. To date, no state has stepped forward with a set of procurement procedures that offers a solution to this vexing conundrum.

While most states continue to struggle with the issue of verification of standards conformance, the California statute is unique in clarifying how the state will address the issue. That law adopts in whole the federal Section 508 standards and requires that any vendor contracting with the state to provide IT products shall agree to respond to and resolve any complaint regarding accessibility of its products . . . As a result, the California law places responsibility for IT accessibility conformance with the vendor rather than the state purchaser.

A summary of the important features of the 15 state laws and one state policy related to procurement of accessible IT, along with links to the state laws and policies, are included in the reference section of this article.

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY

Change occurs rapidly in the IT field and efforts in IT accessibility will continue to evolve within state government. While states have developed a variety of different laws and policies to address IT accessibility, some overarching conclusions can be drawn. Most notably, states seem to be committed to supporting IT accessibility initiatives to ensure the inclusion of all state citizens in e-government and e-commerce initiatives. Even with the desperate fiscal situation of states today, accessibility continues to be an issue of discussion and action.

Many web initiatives at the state level are in varied stages of development or maturation. Accessibility can be expected to move forward as state CIO offices progress toward the development of clear and consistent policies and technical architectures that affect all state government agencies as a whole. Those states in the preliminary stages of addressing accessibility, have identified a commitment, but have not yet established processes for implementation and standards adoption. These entities, as well as those that have policies and standards in place, could benefit from identification of policy components that can be modified to reflect their states operational structure and practices.

Training will always continue to be an area of need related to web access. During budget restrictions and challenges, such as those facing states at this time, training is often one of the areas with diminished support. In addition, changes in IT staffing, including web developers, is a constant. This will be even more evident in the next ten years as the state government employee pool ages. IT has been one of the growing career opportunities in the last few years and attracts a constant infusion of people. Accessibility strategies and programming needs to be addressed in general educational programs and commercial training programs and curricula for web developers. Efforts to include accessibility as a seamless approach will only serve to increase usability, but its implementation at the front-end will result in savings by avoiding potential retrofits of web sites developed without access in mind.

In procurement, states are clamoring for successful models or protocols that can be used in product accessibility reviews, especially ones that produce some form of rating which can be folded into a states procurement process. Many IT access standards are subjective and cannot be rated with a binary yes/no measure. As a result, state procurement officials need a model for appropriate review procedures, especially a process that produces a valid, reliable, and consistent rating of conformance with adopted standards. Questions need to be addressed such as what type and range of rating scale is appropriate? Is the rating of each standard equal or should some standards be weighted with more relative importance than others? Which standards can be rated through paper review of product specifications? Do some standards require judgments that can only be made through use of assistive technology with the product? If hands-on activities are done, with or without assistive technology, is there a protocol that should be used to support a consistent rating?

With access to successful review and rating protocols, states could then focus on delivery of training to implement such procedures. Since subjective judgments are required, it is absolutely critical for individuals responsible for the accessibility reviews and ratings to have sufficient IT accessibility expertise. Without appropriately trained reviewers, the accessibility ratings could be so inconsistent as to render them useless and could potentially expose the state to unwanted legal action. In addition, if as a result of poor accessibility reviews and rating systems, states inadvertently purchase less accessible products; the big losers become the vendors with more accessible products that did not get the purchasing edge they deserved. Not only does this undermine the intent of IT accessibility laws and policies, but if IT companies do not see a return on their investments for accessibility it could lead to dwindling attention on accessibility during product development and deployment.

With support in these areas, states hope to be able to continue to move forward on IT accessibility initiatives in both web accessibility and IT procurement. Unfortunately, almost all state budgets are facing their largest deficit in decades, making it more important than ever for the federal government and state governments to share information and ideas about what works (and what doesnt work). Sharing web accessibility resources, procurement reviews of commercial products, and other IT accessibility procedures between and among states and the federal government will ensure the most cost effective use of public dollars. With pooled ideas and resources, progress can and should continue in IT accessibility.

REFERENCE LINKS FOR PROCUREMENT LAWS

Maryland (1998)
http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/bills/hb/hb0185e.rtf

Minnesota (1998)
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/16C/145.html

Texas (1999)
http://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/srrpub11-accessibility.htm
http://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/technology-access.htm

Arkansas (1999)
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/acts/1999/htm/act1227.htm
http://www.techarch.state.ar.us/domains/accessibility/policy/accesspol.doc

Maine (1999 policy)
http://www.maine.gov/portal/accessibility.html

Missouri (1999/2002)
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills02/biltxt02/truly02/HB2117T.HTM
http://www.oit.state.mo.us/policies/accessibility.html

Nebraska (2000)
http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Statutes
Must type in Technology Access Clause or 73-205 to search for the statute.
http://www.nitc.state.ne.us/standards/accessibility/accessibility_standards.pdf
http://www.nitc.state.ne.us/standards/accessibility/tacfinal.htm

Kentucky (2000)
http://www.katsnet.org/ait-law.rtf

Colorado (2000)
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2000/sl.315.htm

Louisiana (2001)
http://www.legis.state.la.us/tsrs/tsrs.asp?lawbody=RS&title=39&section=302 and
http://www.legis.state.la.us/tsrs/tsrs.asp?lawbody=RS&title=39&section=301

Virginia (2001)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3500 through
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3504

Montana (2001)
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/18/5/18-5-601.htm through
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/18/5/18-5-605.htm

Indiana (2001)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2001/HE/HE1926.1.html

West Virginia (2001)
ftp://129.71.164.29/ftp-senate01/SB0401-0600/

North Carolina (2001)
http://www.ncleg.net/Statutes/GeneralStatutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_168A.html

California (2002)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=5995881998+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve or
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Select the "Government Code" check box and then enter 11135 as the search criteria which will bring up the GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11135-11139.8" link.

SUMMARY OF STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACCESS PROCUREMENT LAWS AND POLICIES

The following is a summary of current state laws (and one state policy, Maine) related to procurement of accessible IT. Many additional states have guidelines or policies addressing web accessibility that are not included here. Some states also have laws or policies that address the accessibility of textbooks and other instructional materials that are not included in this summary.