Section 508 Web Assessment Plan Mary Frances Theofanos January 16, 2003

1
Section 508 Web Assessment Plan Mary Frances
TheofanosJanuary 16, 2003
2
CTB and Section 508, Past and Future

• CTB Mission
• Section 508 the Web
• CTB Section 508 Activities
• Planning Strategy
• Services Resources
• Partnerships Recognition
• Section 508 Web Assessment Plan
• The Problem
• The Solution
• Issues

3
Who We Are

• Communication Technologies Branch (CTB)
• National Cancer Institutes Office of
  Communications (NIH)
• CTB Mission
• To analyze, design, evaluate, and test
  communications technology systems, products, and
  services (Web sites, software, mobile
  technologies, phone systems, and other user
  interfaces) to make them more usable, useful, and
  accessible

4
Section 508 Web Standards

• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended
  by Congress in 1998, requires that federal
  agencies' electronic and information technology
  be accessible to people with disabilities.
• Applies to all federal and federally funded Web
  sites.
• The Access Board-developed technical standards
  for compliance (Federal Accessibility Standards
  for Web-based Intranet and Internet Information
  and Applications) were published on December 21,
  2000 and took effect June 21, 2001.
• Enforcement Citizens may sue agencies to compel
  compliance
• There are 16 paragraphs in the Web standards

5
1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet
information and applications. (a) A text
equivalent for every non-text element shall be
provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in
element content). (b) Equivalent alternatives
for any multimedia presentation shall be
synchronized with the presentation. (c) Web
pages shall be designed so that all information
conveyed with color is also available without
color, for example from context or markup. (d)
Documents shall be organized so they are readable
without requiring an associated style sheet. (e)
Redundant text links shall be provided for each
active region of a server-side image map. (f)
Client-side image maps shall be provided instead
of server-side image maps except where the
regions cannot be defined with an available
geometric shape. (g) Row and column headers
shall be identified for data tables. (h) Markup
shall be used to associate data cells and header
cells for data tables that have two or more
logical levels of row or column headers. (i)
Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates
frame identification and navigation. (j) Pages
shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to
flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and
lower than 55 Hz. (k) A text-only page, with
equivalent information or functionality, shall be
provided to make a web site comply with the
provisions of this part, when compliance cannot
be accomplished in any other way. The content of
the text-only page shall be updated whenever the
primary page changes. (l) When pages utilize
scripting languages to display content, or to
create interface elements, the information
provided by the script shall be identified with
functional text that can be read by assistive
technology. (m) When a web page requires that an
applet, plug-in or other application be present
on the client system to interpret page content,
the page must provide a link to a plug-in or
applet that complies with 1194.21(a) through
(l). (n) When electronic forms are designed to
be completed on-line, the form shall allow people
using assistive technology to access the
information, field elements, and functionality
required for completion and submission of the
form, including all directions and cues. (o) A
method shall be provided that permits users to
skip repetitive navigation links. (p) When a
timed response is required, the user shall be
alerted and given sufficient time to indicate
more time is required.
6
Typical issues

• PDF files
• Meta refresh
• Whats equivalent?
• GO button and drop downs

7
NCI Accessibility Standards

• Published January 2002
• Part of larger Web standards effort/cancer.gov
  relaunch
• Not widely publicized (yet)
• Totally dependent on Section 508 Standards, with
  minor additions
• Accessibility Link included in Design Standards

8
These questions need to be answered

• How accessible are NCI/HHS sites?
• No grading system Subjective
• One persons pass is another persons fail
• No definitive measure of compliance
• Rely on self reporting?
• No way to aggregate
• How much more does NCI/HHS need to do? (and
  where?)
• Training
• Priorities
• Retrofitting what to fix first
• Which sites to fix first

9
How accessible are NCI/HHS Web sites?

• How can we answer this question?
• Traditional accessibility reviews
• Labor intensive
• Not standardized (priorities or reporting)
• Too much effort on technical violations (what is
  compliant?)
• No standard interpretation of Access Board
  standards (what is equivalent?)
• Focused on what needs fixing, not big picture
• No way to aggregate data
• One-time value (must redo from the ground up for
  new data)
• No strategy for self-assessment or sampling

10
A new approach is needed

• Create a standardized assessment process
• Choose among current competing tools and report
  data
• Create a protocol for human judgment (problem
  severity and context)
• Create method to aggregate data
• Create grading system (e.g., Homeland security
  alerts)
• Create guidance on when testing is indicated
• Create a standard report (by site and groups of
  sites)
• Benefits
• Know how well HHS/NCI has donecreate a baseline
• Standardized protocol reusable by any 3rd party
• Standardized self-assessment possible
• Measure performance across time
• Commit resources where they are needed
• Reduce ambiguity in interpretation of standards
• Sampling much more feasible
• Potential buy-in across government

11
Overview of Assessment Protocol
Results of HTML Check (e.g., Bobby)
Web Site Attributes
Score / Site Report
Violation Severity / Weight
Aggregation
Usability / Accessibility Testing Guidance
Assessment Results / Final Report / Baseline
Self Assessment Protocol
12
How New Approach Assessment

• Use NCAM Partnership
• Larry Goldberg, Director, Geoff Freed, Andrew
  Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Rothberg, Jennifer Gormley
• Assemble panel of Web Accessibility experts
• Jim Allen, Ph.D.
• Webmaster, Texas School for the Blind and
  Visually Impaired
• Active in W3C-WAI
• Jim Thatcher
• Constructing Accessible Web Sites Coauthor
• Access Board Advisory Committee member
• Jim Tobias
• President, Inclusive Technologies, Inc.
• Accessibility Expert with Bell Labs, others
• Include HHS 508 Program Team
• Choose tool, data aggregation system
• Develop human decision protocol, grading system,
  standard report, testing guidance
• Share progress open process for buy-in
• Pilot assessment on test sites, refinemake sure
  results match common sense
• HHS assessment

13
Progress Where are we now

• September 5, 2002 Kick-off meeting
• Chosen the tool Bobby CL
• Developed the 508 Standards Matrix
• Piloted the protocol on an example Web site --
  NHLBI

14
Whats Next

• Need to test the protocol on two more Web sites
  for comparisons
• Comments and reviews internally
• Comments and peer review from external audiences
• Application of the protocol to NCI and HHS Web
  sites

15
Issues

• Must be managed carefully not to provide
  impression of avoiding 508 responsibilitiesfollow
  up (and progress) are critical
• Effort to get buy in from disabled community,
  other agencies could slow things down
• Human decision protocols will still use some
  subjective judgmentmay be tweaked throughout
  process

16
Contacts

• Communication Technologies Branch (CTB)
• Office of Communications National Cancer
  Institute
• Mary Theofanos
• 6116 Executive Blvd, Suite 3048A
• Rockville, MD 20852
• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• Email mtheo_at_mail.nih.gov
• Philip Passarelli
• 6116 Executive Blvd, Suite 3048A
• Rockville, MD 20852
• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• Email pap_at_mail.nih.gov