WCAG 2.2 Guidelines – What’s New

WCAG Standard image

WCAG 2.2 Guidelines

2.2 has been released as draft for review. Interesting too that Personas listing different fictional people is provided as usability baseline. This is much like what the University of Cambridge did with their Personas.

One change is reduction of level for Focus Visible. Several of the WCAG elements have been used in the ADA Guidelines but WCAG generally does not apply verbatim for closed systems such as kiosks. Many of the areas that WCAG 2.1 addresses are also addressed in ADA and Section 508 so in a virtual sense there is some applicability.

Here are the changes:

Accessibility Testing Tools – Simulating Disabilities by Cambridge

disability simulators

Simulating Disability For More Complete Accessibility Testing

From the University of Cambridge

The Kiosk Association is evaluating creating a test process for kiosk providers to offer customers where they test for accessibility.  Some of the tools that can be learned from are the RNIB Tried and Tested certification.  Members such as Storm Interface have products that have achieved certification under the Tried and Tested programme  (in deference to UK).

Part of the criteria for the RNIB tests includes the use of “simulators”. Inclusive design means an older person with arthritis can conduct a transaction for example. That is inclusive design.

Disability Simulators – Here is the link

disability simulators

disability simulators

 

Accessibility Calculators – Estimating Exclusion

And while it is probably next to impossible to provide accessibility for all and any disabled, you can at least consider the percentage of audience that will be served (and not served)

 

exclusion calculators

exclusion calculators

Managing The Process

managing the test process

managing the test process

Personas — Having a complete set of profiled users is essential

Cambridge persona set

Cambridge persona set

 

RNIB Criteria

Test criteria for RNIB Tried and Tested

RNIB Tried and Tested certification (previously ” RNIB Approved”) relates only to the accessibility and usability of the product, website or app as assessed using the RNIB criteria set out below:

Websites

We assess against WCAG 2.1 AA standards and also include an assessment with high contrast schemes, as this affects a number of partially sighted people. An assistive technology assessment is then carried out using screen reader and magnification programmes to identify usability issues.

Apps

We carry out an assessment against RNIB’s internal app accessibility and usability guidelines. We use the speech and magnification software available on iOS and Android phones using recent or the latest operating systems.

Products

We carry out an assessment against RNIB’s internal inclusive design guidelines, which cover visual, tactile and audio aspects of the user interface. We use simulation devices such as apps and items from the Inclusive Design Toolkitdeveloped by Cambridge University, as well as the knowledge we have gained from observing blind and partially sighted people use products through our user testing.

All areas

For all areas, we carry out observed user testing once the issues raised in the expert assessment have been addressed. Observed user testing is always carried out with a minimum of 10 blind and partially sighted people.

RNIB uses its best endeavours during the testing to ensure accessibility and usability, but we make no comment on the content or general use of products, websites or apps beyond testing the product against the criteria set out above. Our aim is to assist blind and partially sighted people to identify when a product or service is accessible and usable and enable them to make an informed choice. We bear no liability for any use of the website, app or product or any information contained therein.

USEFUL LINKS

More Posts

Orphans Find It

Helping Google Out

Access Board Rulemaking Overview

U.S. Access Board Logo

It is expected that the U.S. Access Board will issue its ANPRM this month. Here is some background

From Reginfo.gov

View EO 12866 Meetings Printer-Friendly Version     Download RIN Data in XML
ATBCB RIN: 3014-AA44 Publication ID: Spring 2022
Title: Accessibility Guidelines for Self-Service Transaction Machines
Abstract:This rulemaking would amend the Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board’s existing accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), located at 36 CFR part 1191, to include guidelines for the accessibility of fixed self-service transaction machines, self-service kiosks, information transaction machines, and point-of-sale devices.  The U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Justice are expected, via separate rulemakings, to adopt these amended guidelines as enforceable standards for devices and equipment covered by the ADA.
Agency: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board(ATBCB) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Prerule Stage
Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 36 CFR 1191
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12204    29 U.S.C. 792
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 08/00/2022
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Agency Contact:
Christopher Kuczynski
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street NW,
Washington, DC 20004
Phone:202 272-0042
TDD Phone:202 272-0076
Email: [email protected]

 

06/17/2022 3014-AA44 3014-ATBCB Accessibility Guidelines for Self-Service Transaction Machines Pending Review
01/06/2020 3014-AA42 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles Published 02/07/2020 Consistent with Change
08/03/2016 1105-AB50 1105-DOJ/LA Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) Published 01/03/2017 Consistent with Change
06/21/2016 3014-AA38 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles Published 11/18/2016 Consistent with Change
06/14/2016 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 06/14/2016 Consistent without Change
08/31/2015 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 03/01/2016 Consistent with Change
09/09/2014 3014-AA38 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles Concluded 06/02/2015 Withdrawn
06/14/2013 1190-AA63 1190-DOJ/CRT Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and Video Description Published 07/09/2014 Consistent with Change
03/08/2013 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 08/29/2013 Consistent with Change
12/19/2012 3014-AA11 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles: Passenger Vessels Published 05/30/2013 Consistent with Change

ADA Accessibility Posts Top 6 – August 21

kiosk association kma logo

ADA and Accessibility Posts

Below are the six top posts for ADA from our Flip channel. It is impossible to post every relevant article so we note them in brief so that we can inform others of that content. Generally we post content from U.S. Access Board and the Justice Department. Contact [email protected] for more information.

 

ADA Kiosk Posts

ADA Kiosk Posts

More Posts

ADA Kiosks – Eve Hill Senate Testimony on Federal Technology & Title III

ada kiosks

How To Improve Accessibility – Testimony by Eve Hill July 2022

Testimony of Eve Hill during Senate Hearing. She calls out the Social Security Administration intake kiosks, calls for enforcement tools among other things and ending the immunity of the federal government for its wide-ranging violations. Interesting point raised “if Access Board is given enforcement authority”. Many thanks to Bill Goren and Understanding the ADA

Thursday, July 28th, 2022</time
10:00am
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 562

“In a world in which digital communications and services happen at the speed of light, people with disabilities must not be left to rely on slow, obsolete, and expensive analog technologies,” Eve explained in written testimony. “If websites aren’t accessible to people who are blind or low-vision, if videos are not captioned for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and if kiosks are not built to communicate flexibly, people with disabilities are not just inconvenienced – they are shut out.”

On July 28th one of the leading disability rights attorneys, Eve Hill testified on accessible federal technology before the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging during its hearing entitled “Click Here: Accessible Federal Technology for People with Disabilities, Older Americans, and Veterans.”

About Eve Hill —  Partner at Brown Goldstein & Levy and was formerly a Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. She has spent her career implementing the laws protecting the rights of people with disabilities.

During her testimony, Eve offered her insight on the meaning and history of technology accessibility law as it pertains to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires all federal agencies to make all their information technology accessible to people with disabilities. She also addressed areas where government oversight and accountability can be strengthened and best practices for achieving/maintaining web and technology accessibility in the federal government.

Excerpts from Testimony

  • If websites aren’t accessible to people who are blind or low-vision, if videos are not captioned for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and if kiosks are not built to communicate flexibly, people with disabilities are not just inconvenienced – they are shut out.
  • Many individuals with vision disabilities use screen reader software that can convert visually delivered Internet content into an audio or Braille form; however, the visually-delivered content must be properly formatted and structured for the screen reader to work effectively. For instance, a screen reader or similar assistive technology cannot “read” an image. Thus, when images appear on websites they must be paired with “alt-text” that describes the image for screen readers to read. In addition, individuals with vision and manual dexterity disabilities often cannot effectively use a mouse, so websites need to be coded to allow navigation using the keyboard.
  • As the Court in Robles v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, explained, “Defendant contends that its phone line is an acceptable accessibility substitute for its webpage and App. This is not true; it is undisputed that Plaintiff waited over forty-five minutes before hanging up on at least two occasions. No person who has ever waited on hold with customer service – or ever been hungry for a pizza – would find this to be an acceptable substitute for ordering from a website.
  • in February 2022, 96.8% of the top one million home pages still had accessibility barriers. Each page had an average of 50.8 accessibility errors. A user with a disability can expect to encounter one error in every 19 home page elements they use. And most of these errors are simple – low contrast text, missing alt-text for images, incorrectly labeled form inputs, empty links or buttons, and failure to identify the site’s language. If these accessible elements had been incorporated as a matter of course in the design of the site, they would have added nothing to the complexity or cost of the site. In fact, they would have made the sites work better for everyone. The WebAIM Million, The 2022 Report on the Accessibility of the Top 1,000,000 Home
    Pages, https://webaim.org/projects/million/.
  • While issuing digital accessibility regulations for federal, state, and local governments and agencies is a good first step, it is also critical to issue regulations addressing the web accessibility obligations of public accommodations under Title III of the ADA. Private entities, including retail stores, restaurants, medical professionals, entertainment, schools, gyms, and service providers, play significant roles in our lives. Now that they have mostly moved their goods and services online, people with disabilities cannot afford to wait for equal digital access.
  • in 2021, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation found that 30% of the most popular federal websites were not accessible and nearly half had access barriers on at least one of their most popular pages.
  • If this is the result for websites – the simplest form of information and communication technology to make accessible – one need not guess at the level of accessibility of other forms of technology, such as self-help kiosks, telehealth platforms, multimedia trainings, and office equipment
  • In fact, the accessibility of those types of technology is dismal. Clients of my firm,  alone, are currently dealing with trainings required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that are totally unusable by screen readers, and intake kiosks used by the Social Security Administration that are not usable by blind people. In each case, people with disabilities are being forced to rely on third parties, and even to reveal private information to strangers, such as security guards, in order to receive service at all.
  • The Social Security Administration has also, as a policy matter, refused to adopt accessible technology at all. For example, it insists on wet-ink signatures on various documents required to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, in spite of the wide availability, security, and accessibility of electronic signature programs. Although the agency began accepting e-signatures temporarily as a result of litigation during the pandemic, and did so successfully for nearly 18 months, it has refused to change its policy on a permanent basis.
  • For Section 508 to be effective, the federal government needs to stop the inflow of inaccessible technology into its agencies. This requires agencies to pay attention to accessibility at the beginning of a procurement or development. Agencies often rely on Voluntary Accessibility Product Template forms or other statements from vendors made during the procurement process to support their assumptions that selected products meet the Section 508 standards. Unfortunately, these statements are often aspirational, misleading, or confusing and too often do not ensure accessibility. This is particularly problematic when agencies such as the Treasury Department or GSA purchase technology that is then used across the government.
  • If the Access Board is given enforcement responsibility, it must also be given appropriate authority to respond to complaints, to conduct compliance reviews, to engage in informal enforcement activities, such as public notices of violation, and to engage in formal enforcement, such as administrative compliance orders. Of course, with a staff of fewer than 30, the Access Board does not currently have the resources to meet its current responsibilities and add responsibility for oversight of federal government digital offerings.
  • Congress should amend Section 508 to make clear that both taxpayers and federal employees have a private right of action to enforce the law. In addition, Congress should explicitly waive the government’s sovereign immunity to such suits – another argument that has been raised by the government but not decided by the
    courts.
  • Congress should ensure that agencies have strong tools to hold their vendors accountable – including contract recission, liquidated damages, indemnification, and specific performance. Congress should insist that agencies actually use those tools and requiring regular reporting on technology products that were found to be inaccessible, the vendor responsible, and the action taken to remedy the breach.

More Testimony

Anil Lewis Executive Director for Blindness Initiatives

National Federation of the Blind
Atlanta, GA
Excerpt:
The Social Security Administration offers good and bad examples of providing equal access. In one instance, the introduction of technology has made it more difficult for a blind person to access SSA services. Formerly, I would go into a Social Security office, pull a number and wait an indefinite time alongside other citizens. This was frustrating, but equal. With the implementation of the new Social Security kiosks, which are inaccessible to the blind, I am confronted with the option of coordinating my visit with a sighted friend or family member, or asking a complete stranger to enter my Social Security number into the inaccessible kiosk to be added to the service cue. In another instance SSA has demonstrated the benefit of accessibility through the creation of one of the most accessible websites within the federal government. At one time, it was extremely easy to use my screen reader to access the information provided at https://www.ssa.gov/. Unfortunately, this was only as long as the individuals familiar with the technology were on staff. The access continues to diminish as the trained staff retires, or leaves for other employment.

Telehealth Accessibility Guidelines from HHS

telehealth accessibility

Telehealth Accessibility

As we commemorate the 32nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are partnering to publish guidance on the protections in federal nondiscrimination laws, including the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requiring that telehealth be accessible to people with disabilities and limited English proficient persons. These laws work in tandem to prohibit discrimination and protect access to health care. The guidance is available here on the Justice Department website.  The guidance is also available here on the HHS website.

“Telehealth has become an evolving and common pathway for accessing healthcare, particularly as our society becomes increasingly digitized,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “It is critical to ensure that telehealth care is accessible to all, including patients with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency and people of all races and national origins. Federal civil rights laws protect patients from discrimination regardless of whether they are receiving health care online or at the doctor’s office. The Department of Justice will vigorously enforce the ADA and other civil rights laws to ensure that health care providers offering telehealth services are doing so free from discrimination.”

“We have seen important expansions in health care technologies, such as telehealth, that provide great convenience and help for people seeking care,” said Acting Director Melanie Fontes Rainer of HHS’s Office for Civil Rights. “This guidance makes clear that there is a legal obligation to ensure that all people receive full access to needed health care and can connect to telehealth services, free of discriminatory barriers. While we celebrate the progress of the ADA, we know how important it remains to uphold the rights of people with disabilities and other protected individuals to make our country accessible and inclusive for all. That work has been a priority of this Administration from day one, and President Biden’s Executive Order on advancing equity explicitly includes people with disabilities in its call for comprehensive action.”

Technological developments and the COVID-19 public health emergency have increased the importance of providing telehealth and greatly expanded its use. Telehealth can take many forms, including communication between a patient and a health care provider via video, phone or other electronic means. While telehealth has many benefits, including making health care more available and convenient, certain populations may face discrimination or other barriers in accessing care provided via telehealth. For example:

  • A person who is blind or has limited vision may find that the web-based platform their doctor uses for telehealth appointments does not support screen reader software.
  • A person who is deaf and communicates with a sign language interpreter may find that the video conferencing program their provider uses does not allow an interpreter to join the appointment from a separate location.
  • A limited English proficient person may need instructions in a language other than English about how to set up a telehealth appointment.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights and Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division have collaborated to provide this new guidance to help health care providers better understand their nondiscrimination obligations and patients better understand their rights under federal law in this area. The guidance provides examples of actions that may be discriminatory and describes steps that providers may need to take to ensure that health care offered via telehealth is accessible. The guidance also provides a list of resources that providers and patients may wish to consult for additional information about telehealth and civil rights protections.

If you believe that you or someone else has been discriminated against because of your race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex or religion in programs or activities that HHS directly operates or to which HHS provides federal financial assistance, you may file a complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights at: https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/filing-a-complaint/index.html.

If you believe that a telehealth provider has violated your or another person’s civil rights, you may file a complaint with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division at: https://civilrights.justice.gov/#report-a-violation.

Related Posts

Point CounterPoint – Nobody Likes Self-Checkout CNN

Walmart Self-Checkout

Self-Checkout?

CNN ran an article on “Nobody likes self-checkout”. It made some good points albeit short on any backfill data to support. We talked about it as the only way to make something better is to collect feedback of all sorts. CNN editors are driven by serving audience segments and in the self-service industry we have had to deal with the usual anti-automation, “replaces workers”, and a long list of other complaints.  Automation is scary sometimes to many people. For more information email [email protected]

In Brief

  • Audio can be irritating — maybe but for the disabled customer the lack of audio can result in very poor outcomes with the “helpful” staff.  Imagine you are disabled and getting assistance with the cash back function.  That requires trust.
  • Survey says “67% experienced a failure” at SCO lanes — there is no source quoted or linked.  It appears to be from digital signage firm.
  • Disadvantages for stores listed are expensive to install, often break down and lead to customers purchasing fewer items. They incure higher losses and more shoplifting at self-checkout. — not sure where all that data comes from but other sources such as Oliver POS, Capgemini, NCR say otherwise.
    • According to Civic Science’s recent U.S. survey, 46% of respondents aged 18-34 prefer using self-service over service with a cashier. Likewise, the NCR states that the main reason customers like self-checkout is the convenience. 
  • Self-Checkout is still growing. 29% of transactions at food retailers were processed through self-checkout, up from 23% the year prior, according to the latest data from food industry association FMI. — this is a data stat from FMI on supermarkets for sure.
  • Why is an unloved technology still proliferating?  — Not sure that premise is true.  Having multiple ways to checkout for multiple circumstances, while raising number of transactions and lowering cost, seems clear to us. It isn’t generally a one solution fits all given the supermarket shoppers.  Aldi and others have developed a focus on those customers wanting quick and fast. They don’t deal with the slow and problematic. A bit unfair but surely optimized.
  • The writer calls out CheckRobot as first installed at several Kroger Stores — the real pioneer in the space was Optimal Robotics. In 2001 they hit the 5000 units mark at Kroger. No wonder that Fujitsu bought them in 2004.
    • 2004 — IHL’s market study also reported that shipments of self-checkout systems will grow by about 95 percent in 2004, with the market exceeding $1.3 billion in 2005. Greg Buzek, president of IHL, estimates that 95 percent of the supermarket chains in North America will have some degree of self-checkout by 2006.  “Self-checkout is an absolute necessity, as supermarkets face pressure from Wal-Mart,” Buzek said. “It allows them to shift employees to higher-profit areas of the store, and it gives them a competitive advantage.”
  • Although self-checkout counters eliminated some of the tasks of traditional cashiers, they still needed to be staffed and created a need for higher wage IT jobs, he said. Self-checkout, Andrews added, “delivers none of what it promises.” — — The intent was not to reduce employees. Hybrid checkouts are complex and of course come with support and maintenance. NCR has an entire building in Bentonville just for self-checkout support staff.  Even “just walk out” stores have people, just not in the usual roles and places.
  • Despite all of these “shortcomings”, self-checkout is only expanding.
  • FOMO (fear of missing out) and the “arms race” drives stores — there is some basis in that but self-checkout was slated to be installed of 95% of stores in 2004 according to IHL Group, who is a smart research firm.  We are checking Buzek for comments.

Excerpt

New York (CNN Business)“Unexpected item in the bagging area.”

“Please place item in the bag.”
“Please wait for assistance.”
If you’ve encountered these irritating alerts at the self-checkout machine, you’re not alone.
According to a survey last year of 1,000 shoppers, 67% said they’d experienced a failure at the self-checkout lane. Errors at the kiosks are so common that they have even spawned dozens of memes and TikTok videos.
“We’re in 2022. One would expect the self-checkout experience to be flawless. We’re not there at all,” said Sylvain Charlebois, director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia who has researched self-checkout.
Customers aren’t the only ones frustrated with the self-checkout experience. Stores have challenges with it, too.
Comments
It was interesting how they spoke about these things coming about because the cost cutting measures vs. it being something cool for the customer. I think most things come about as cost cutting when you get down to it. Or if it is customer experience then its done for other reasons. Sort of like Santa Claus in the mall or ice skating etc… Done as a draw to get people in the door to spend money. Clearly a self-checkout kiosk does not fall into that category.

I am intrigued though on how to make it a better experience. I’ve found that I’m getting much better at the Fujitsu units at my local grocery store. I’m pretty proficient with them and choose to use it whenever I have only a few items. It gets me on my way much quicker. But how to make it fun or pleasurable and not like pumping gas. That is a thought.

Other links

Problem Areas

Produce —

Self-checkout can be a pain point for shoppers buying produce. More than three in 10 shoppers steer clear of fresh produce when using self-checkout, the Food Industry Association noted in a recent report.

Instead of having to remember the four-digit item code or search through the menu of products to find it, companies like Extenda Retail, KanduAI and Toshiba are looking to make the process simpler and faster with produce recognition solutions. Arigi of Kroger said during NRF that produce recognition software is of keen interest to the grocery chain as it looks to further innovate in self-checkout.

KanduAI, a technology company started in 2018 and headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel, uses deep learning and artificial intelligence to recognize fruits and vegetables and provide a short list of possibilities to consumers. Shoppers can select if the item is organic or not.

From Grocery Dive

Airline Disable Passengers Bill of Rights

Disabled Passengers Airline Bill of Rights

Airlines Bill Of Rights Department of Transportation

This Bill of Rights describes the fundamental rights of air travelers with disabilities under the Air Carrier Access Act and its implementing regulation, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 382.  For more information email [email protected]

The Bill of Rights consists of:

  1. The Right to Be Treated with Dignity and Respect.
  2. The Right to Receive Information About Services and Aircraft Capabilities and Limitations.
  3. The Right to Receive Information in an Accessible Format.
  4. The Right to Accessible Airport Facilities.
  5. The Right to Assistance at Airports.
  6. The Right to Assistance on the Aircraft.
  7. The Right to Travel with an Assistive Device or Service Animal.
  8. The Right to Receive Seating Accommodations.
  9. The Right to Accessible Aircraft Features.
  10. The Right to Resolution of a Disability-Related Issue.

Click on any of the rights above to be linked to an explanation of that right in this document. The Bill of Rights does not expand or restrict the rights of air travelers with disabilities. Rather, it provides a convenient summary of existing law. Because the explanations in this document may not be as precise as the regulations themselves, the explanations link to the actual regulatory text for your reference.

The full pdf is located here.

Comments

By Craig Keefner (ex-programmer for Northwest Airlines)

I remember back in early 2000s there were several incidents regarding passengers suffering due to airline mishaps. Being stranded on the tarmac for 10 hours.  NWA (later bought by Delta) instituted a bill of rights for passengers back then called Customers First. You can still view it out on the Wayback Machine. Worth noting that Delta has an Accessibility page geared towards usage of website. Delta even has a Advisory Board on Disabilities. Doing a Fast Pass with Edge on accessibility of the Delta homepage yields double-digit failed instances which is surprising.  Maybe there is some differential between the WCAG engines.

By Sheri Byrne-Haber (disabled) on LinkedIn

I am thrilled that the US Department of Transportation has published an “Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights.” It is way past time something like this existed since airlines have repeatedly indicated through their actions that they don’t particularly care about their customers with disabilities, though they are happy to take our money and claim they care about us when something negative happens

There are a few things that I am definitely not thrilled about. This post is going to address the gender and race bias that appears in the cover image.

1) The only Black-appearing individual on the cover image is a female-appearing person in a safety vest pushing a wheelchair being used by a White-appearing male.

2) All the service staff appear to be women

3) All the people with visible disabilities appear to be male.

Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me that in this modern era that people continually have to bring stuff like this up *after* something is published. There is exactly one way to prevent this, and it is actually quite easy.

Have as many underrepresented groups as possible review the document in advance of publication and LISTEN to what they have to say.

Pete Buttigieg – you can do better than this!

More Posts

ANSI Electric Vehicles Standards Panel Sponsor

EV Charging Stations

The Kiosk Manufacturer Association announces that it is an Associate Partner sponsor of the ANSI Electric Vehicles Standards Panel with a link to the EVSP landing page EV Standards Panel.  We are also signed up for a Working Group (twice a month call). If you are interested in becoming a participating sponsor and/or signing up for Working Group you email [email protected]

You can find us listed here.

Overview

The ANSI Electric Vehicles Standards Panel (EVSP) is a cross-sector coordinating body whose objective is to foster coordination and collaboration on standardization matters among public- and private-sector stakeholders to enable the safe, mass deployment of electric vehicles and associated infrastructure in the United States with international coordination, adaptability, and engagement. Outputs of the EVSP in the 2011-2014 timeframe included a Standardization Roadmap for Electric Vehicles (Version 2.0, May 2013), a Progress Report (November 2014) against same, and a Standards Compendium. Though the priorities have shifted in many respects with the new focus on EVs@Scale, aspects of the earlier EVSP work may be drawn upon as needed.

Call For Participation

Contact: Susanah Doucet
(212) 642-4931
[email protected]

Calling All Stakeholders: ANSI to Develop Roadmap of Standards and Codes for Electric Vehicles at Scale

Sign Up for a Working Group. Register for June 15 Kick-off Event. Consider Becoming a Sponsor.

New York, June 8, 2022: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) announced today the launch of an initiative to develop a roadmap of standards and codes for electric vehicles (EVs) at scale. The ANSI Electric Vehicles Standards Panel (EVSP) will serve as the forum for development of the document.

In furtherance of the Biden Administration’s goal for a clean energy future, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) issued a June 2021 lab call funding opportunity announcement. The lab call included a pillar on codes and standards with the goal to “identify and address challenges and barriers to the integration of EVs@Scale charging with the grid created by uncoordinated development of codes and standards and the rapid advances in vehicle and charging technologies.” The EVs@Scale lab consortium formed in response committed to develop a 2022 roadmap like the earlier ANSI EV standards roadmap.

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is the lead lab for the codes and standards pillar, supported by consortium members National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The EV@Scale initiative supports federal and state funding associated with deploying EV charging infrastructure nationwide.

The priorities of the codes and standards effort will be to identify the most critical standards for EVs at scale, including for standards to address high-power DC charging, storage (i.e., microgrid, distributed energy resource management systems) integrated with DC charging, vehicle grid integration, high-power scalable/interoperable wireless charging, and vehicle-oriented systems. Subject-matter experts interested in participating are invited to review the panel architecture and sign up for one or more working groups. A one-hour virtual kick-off event providing more details will be held June 15, 2022, at 12 noon Eastern. Register here. It is envisioned that the working groups will hold virtual meetings, twice per month, over the course of the coming year. A draft roadmap is targeted for mid-February 2023, which will then undergo public review before being finalized by mid-May 2023. Participation is open to EV stakeholders that have operations in the United States.

The ANSI EVSP is a cross-sector coordinating body whose objective is to foster coordination and collaboration on standardization matters among public- and private-sector stakeholders to enable the safe, mass deployment of electric vehicles and associated infrastructure in the United States with international coordination, adaptability, and engagement. Outputs of the EVSP in the 2011-2014 timeframe included a Standardization Roadmap for Electric Vehicles (Version 2.0, May 2013), a Progress Report (November 2014) against same, and a Standards Compendium. Though the priorities have shifted in many respects with the new focus on EVs@Scale, aspects of the earlier EVSP work may be drawn upon as needed.

ANSI’s facilitation of this initiative is supported in part by VTO/Argonne National Laboratory. Additional, exclusive sponsorship opportunities with appropriate recognition benefits are invited from industry and other directly affected stakeholders to help offset ANSI’s costs of operating the EVSP.

Calling All Stakeholders: ANSI to Develop Roadmap of Standards and Codes for Electric Vehicles at Scale

Page 2

“ANSI is pleased to once again offer its services as a neutral facilitator and bring together interested stakeholders to identify the latest standards and conformance needs and challenges associated with the deployment of electric vehicles,” said S. Joe Bhatia, ANSI president and CEO.

For more information, visit ANSI’s EVSP webpage.

About ANSI

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity. Its membership is comprised of businesses, professional societies and trade associations, standards developers, government agencies, and consumer and labor organizations.

The Institute represents and serves the diverse interests of more than 270,000 companies and organizations and 30 million professionals worldwide. ANSI is the official U.S. representative to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, via the U.S. National Committee, the International  Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). For more information, visit //www.ansi.org.