Alison Levy” src=”https://kma.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/alison-levy.png” alt=”U.S. Access Board Alison Levy” width=”153″ height=”201″ /> U.S. Access Board Alison Levy
Alison Levy has been named the new Director of the Office of Technical and Information Services (OTIS) at the U.S. Access Board. She succeeds Dave Yanchulis who retired in April after 36 years with the Board. In this role, Levy will manage and establish program goals and operations for OTIS, including those related to accessibility guidelines and standards, technical assistance and guidance, training, and research. OTIS is responsible for the development of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for buildings, facilities, and transportation vehicles, Standards and Guidelines for Accessible Information and Communication Technology, and Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment.
“I am excited to have Alison join our team of dedicated experts in the accessibility space.” Board Executive Director Sachin Pavithran said. “She will be leading a team of experts that plays a vital role in advancing our accessibility standards and guidelines in advancing equal access for all.”
Full Text
Alison Levy has been named the new Director of the Office of Technical and Information Services (OTIS) at the U.S. Access Board. She succeeds Dave Yanchulis who retired in April after 36 years with the Board. In this role, Levy will manage and establish program goals and operations for OTIS, including those related to accessibility guidelines and standards, technical assistance and guidance, training, and research. OTIS is responsible for the development of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standards, standards and guidelines for accessible information and communication technology, and standards for accessible medical diagnostic equipment.
“I am excited to have Alison join our team of dedicated experts in the accessibility space.” Board Executive Director Sachin Pavithran said. “She will be leading a team of experts that plays a vital role in advancing our accessibility standards and guidelines and advancing equal access for all.”
Levy most recently served as the Manager of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Disability Resource Center (DRC). The DRC is a centrally funded office that supports internal supervisors and employees in creating an accessible and inclusive workplace through recruitment, hiring, outreach, education, and reasonable accommodations.
“Accessibility is a human right that ensures we all thrive together in society,” Levy remarked. “I look forward to working at the Access Board in broadening its capacity to better educate and obtain greater access for all.”
Previously, Levy served at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), providing leadership over the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of individuals with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations. She developed and implemented policies, procedures, and strategic plans, and facilitated programs through a diverse team of more than 50 contacts across USDA’s 34 mission areas, agencies, and staff offices. Her efforts with a team of diversity and inclusion colleagues yielded USDA’s six-level rise in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey to #2 for Large Federal Agencies in Diversity Support.
Levy was one of the founding leaders of the Federal Disability Workforce Consortium (FDWC), a volunteer, interagency organization that grew from 20 to more than 900 federal points of contact with monthly webinars, meetings, and collaborations with the Office of Personnel Management, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy.
As a person with disabilities, and with over 30 years of experience in the disability profession, Levy has worked toward improving workplace attitudes and accessibility, and in providing equal opportunity in the post-secondary, public, and private sectors. Levy earned her B.A. in Public Communication from The American University and her Master’s in Special Education from Johns Hopkins University. She is fluent in American Sign Language.
Nice article centered on Britain but applicable to all countries. Looking at all the ways that a person with some sort of disability must face when driving an electric car is a good source of insight, especially with EV Charging Stations.
We take readers through everything they need to know:
The driving gap between adults with and without a disability
Benefits of and barriers to driving an EV for someone with a disability
How to make EVs more accessible
Support that’s currently available for disabled EV drivers
We explore a whole range of stats and figures:
Adults with a pre-existing condition drive an average of 2,203 miles per year, about half the average distance driven by someone without a disability.
An EV can be a great financial choice. The Motability scheme helps disabled drivers lease cars with a large variety of expenses included. Plus, it’s already up to £756 cheaper a year to run an EV.
It’s unsurprising that only 25% of drivers with a disability feel comfortable driving in an electric vehicle. Promisingly, though, if changes were made to the infrastructure of the charging system, this figure would increase to 61%.
10 million – total number of registered electric cars on the road globally (as of 2020)
We sat in on the Thursday, May 5, 2022 Session. Bruce Bailey of U.S. Access Board led the discussion and as usual provided the “kitchen sink” when it comes to website accessibility. Below are the materials from that session.
We have also included our personal tips for testing and providing website accessibility. We recommend getting on the mailing list for U.S. Access Board and continuing your education and learning regarding accessibility.
Description
Everyone needs access to digital information provided by the World Wide Web. However, many websites have subtle barriers that prevent people with disabilities from using content. Fortunately, accessibility is not difficult to implement, and most accessibility features do not require significant changes to the visual presentation. This session will review what web accessibility is, how people with disabilities use the web, how to quickly identify accessibility barriers, and what are some simple solutions. Access Board IT Specialist Bruce Bailey will also clarify common sources of confusion about web accessibility and provide key resources for learning more about website accessibility. Questions can be submitted in advance of the session or can be posed during the live webinar. This webinar will include video remote interpreting (VRI) and real-time captioning. Webinar attendees can earn continuing education credits.
Useful Tips for Testing, Implementing and Providing Website Accessibility
“Magic bullet” plugins for WordPress and other CMS web systems — Generally these are “accessibility theater”. We have tested and tried many of these. It’s important to note that when we say “tested” we mean we have had disabled users of different tenors actually try the website and let us know what passed and what failed.
Generally tab stops, alt text for images, a readable base font of 16 (1 em is rule) and sufficient contrast ratios for text and hyperlinks is a good place to start’
Videos are becoming more commonplace. Accurate and understandable captions are required. Transcripts are nice for dialogue but they do not mitigate lack of captions in the actual video. There are a variety of transcription services.
Running WordPress ourselves, we have considered activating plugin such as WAH Accessibility Pro. It provides some nice control of text, zoom and even audio. As a plugin it has a relatively light footprint when it comes to load factor. A WP site with Google dev speed of 99 (e.g. kma.global) will drop to around 85 with the plugin fully configured. You can mitigate load factor by utilizing CDN like Cloudflare (highly recommended). That should bring it back to around 95.
Checking your site
WCAG 2.1 Level AA is base reference
We like the new insights from Microsoft Edge browser — it has a fast check that catches stupid mistakes and then more in depth test
A great reference site and another testing tool is webaim
Don’t pay for a testing tool
Click for full size — web accessibility test by Edge
Legal Actions regarding ADA
We maintain a chronology of regulatory “events” (aka lawyers in action) at kioskindustry Legal News. We often use the acronym “FOBS” which rhymes with sobs and stands for Fear of Being Sued. Going cheap not only costs more money, but it narrows your audience. The disabled community is 25 million or so and it is only increasing. Think of them as customers. Japan does.. For reference, Japan is aging rapidly, those over 65 already constituted 27.7% of the total population in 2017. This figure is the highest in the world and is projected to grow continuously up to 38.4% in 2065. These are trends that we will likely see in the U.S. and Europe for that matter.
“If I were on my own, I’d be crying right now. It was just too hard to plug the charger in.” It is a quote from a recently concluded RIDC research participant on disabled electric vehicle users. Electric vehicle technology has been a major boon for disabled people everywhere in the country. Charging technology has yet to catch up to the needs of the differently-abled. The availability of charging stations itself is the largest infrastructural problem. And slipping through its cracks are the everyday struggles of the disabled members of our society.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, is a civil rights law. It seeks to prohibit discrimination against disabled individuals by setting up appropriate guidelines. These ADA compliance guidelines are now established for several domains. There are some workarounds even for those domains that aren’t clearly defined. For example, the WCAG standards can be used to improve a website’s ADA compliance. Some organizations even help with its implementation.
EVCS, or electric vehicle charging systems, don’t have any ADA guidelines whatsoever, nor do they have any equivalent standards that can be used. Some variations of the ADA guidance applied to kiosks and parking could be involved in the future.
The Issues That the Disabled Face
The anxiety of the unknown
Before the journey even starts, a disabled person faces the anxiety of the unknown. Public charging point accessibility isn’t given for most access points. As a result, when a disabled person plans her journey, she is unaware of the charging point until she arrives.
Now let’s take a look at the physical issues that they face.
Design of Space
Accessibility with a walking aid or a wheelchair needs a significant amount of space. A clear area between vehicle parking and the charge point needs to be present. Most vehicle parking spaces aren’t large enough for the disabled to maneuver in. It makes all such charging points inaccessible to them.
Bollards With Charging Stations
Wheel stoppers or small barricades protect many charging points. These make the charging stations out of reach for many due to the distance between the bollards and the machine.
Interaction With the Charging Stations
Electric vehicle charging cables are awkward and heavy. The materials used to manufacture them are selected with durability in mind. These cables and plugs are extremely cumbersome for the differently-abled to handle. Some electric vehicles already have charge points in difficult locations. The charging stations aggravate that issue.
Mandatory Apps for Charging Stations
All charging points also need an app to control and monitor them. Downloading and using apps can be quite challenging for some users. Those with a motor function or vision-related disability, in particular. Charging should not depend on an app, and contactless is the way to go.
Proximity of Facilities
All additional facilities, like toilets, need to be located close to the charging point. The route to and from those facilities must also be clear and straightforward. Thus, accessibility designs shouldn’t just be restricted to the charging points themselves. Accessibility needs to have a wide site-wide scope.
Safety and Security
The right kind of lighting and weather shelter at the charging points are important for everyone. It is even more true for the disabled, who need that extra reassurance that they are in a safe environment. There are crossovers with women’s safety at remote charging points.
The Need for EV Charging Standards
There is no need to reinvent the wheel with the charging stations around the country. These are practical needs and are easy to implement. To be fair to the electric vehicle and charging technology industries, the uptake has been slow. However, conventional petrol and diesel vehicles are slowly being phased out everywhere. And soon their sales will be banned.
The administration needs to define the standards quickly. Significant investment has already been made into charging stations that aren’t fully accessible. For electric vehicle technology to become truly universal, it needs to be accessible to everyone.
No one can be left behind. Not only is it socially imperative, but it also has a commercial rationale. As more and more people start using this technology, businesses and the government will have to make it more accessible. And retrofitting is never an economical solution.
Accessibility is something that is not just useful for those with special needs but for everyone. For instance, parents pushing prams or pregnant women can benefit from these simple design changes. And we have to remember that at some point in our own lives, we will have the needs of the elderly. The need for elderly accessibility is certainly universal.
From Understanding the ADA Blog by William Goren. Mr. Goren is a very highly respected authority on accessibility. We also have the point of view from AccessDefense. Additional viewpoints.
In Brief (by Bill Goren)
Document is too general in view of Goren
Maybe the FCC is watching in regard to mobile phones?
WCAG 2.1 recommended for now
Voice dictation mentioned which is great
The guidance seems to encourage overlays
Excerpt
Common examples of website accessibility barriers include: poor color contrast; use of color alone to give information; lack of text alternatives on images; lack of captioning on video; inaccessible online forms; and mouse only navigation. This list is not exclusive.
Many state and local governmental services, program, and activities are now being offered on the web. Since a website with inaccessible features limits the ability of people with disabilities to access a public entity’s program, services, and activities through that website, the DOJ has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the services, program, or activities of state and local governments, including those offered on the web.
A website with inaccessible features can limit the ability of people with disabilities to access a public accommodation’s goods, services, and privileges available through that website. Accordingly, DOJ has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.
Automated accessibility checkers and overlays identifying or fixing problems with a website can be helpful tools, but they need to be used carefully.
Businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication. But they must comply with the ADA’s requirements.
The Department of Justice does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards for Internet accessibility, but the Department’s longstanding interpretation of the general nondiscrimination and effective communication provisions applies to web accessibility.
Businesses and state and local governments can currently choose how they will ensure that the programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible to people with disabilities. Even though businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication, they still must ensure that the programs, services, and goods that they provide to the public—including those provided online—are accessible to people with disabilities.
Existing technical standards provide helpful guidance concerning how to ensure accessibility of website features. These include the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)and the Section 508 Standards, which the federal government uses for its own websites.
In the “Takeaways” section Bill lists nine different takeaways he sees. We liked the note on voice dictation which hasn’t been mentioned before.
For a most defense oriented point of view here is Access Defense
The Guidance starts with a broken promise:
This guidance describes how state and local governments and businesses open to the public can make sure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
It does no such thing. Instead it points out a few common problems and lists resources that might be helpful to experts in web development. Nowhere does it provide any set of actions or website features that are guaranteed to satisfy the ADA. In fact, it doesn’t even state clearly what DOJ has said in the past; that is, that every website is subject to the ADA even if not associated with a physical place of business. Here is how DOJ states its position:
Title III prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by businesses open to the public (also referred to as “public accommodations” under the ADA). The ADA requires that businesses open to the public provide full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with disabilities.
DOJ apparently wants “businesses open to the public” to means the same thing as “public accommodation,” but the Ninth and other Circuits disagree that the phrases are equivalent. The same ambiguous use of “public accommodation” and “open to the public” occurs throughout the Guidance, although it isn’t clear why DOJ won’t just come out and say that it believes every website is a public accommodation no matter what any Circuit Court of Appeals might say.
The actual guidance about website accessibility is a mishmash of qualified statements that end up saying almost nothing. For example, DOJ asserts that:
Businesses and state and local governments can currently choose how they will ensure that the programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible to people with disabilities.
This is true as a very broad statement of the law, but it doesn’t remind businesses that almost any means of providing online services other than an accessible website will be viewed by DOJ as insufficiently equal. Can DOJ just say what it means? There is a choice in theory, but in fact if services are provided online DOJ will insist that they be accessible online regardless of the other means by which the services are offered.
DOJ seems to be a little more specific when lists seven common problems with accessibility, but then it reminds us this is not a complete list: “This is not a complete list of things to consider.” Where can a business find a “complete list?” DOJ lists a bunch of resources, including the W3 consortium website for the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, but all it says about these is “existing technical standards provide helpful guidance.” Businesses do not need helpful guidance; they need rules so they know they will not be subject to arbitrary prosecutions or private litigation. Those with disabilities need the same thing so they know what to expect with any given website. It’s nice to know that WCAG 2.1 AA is out there, and a look at other DOJ press releases indicates that WCAG 2.1 AA is the best guess for what DOJ wants today. However, there is no telling what DOJ will want tomorrow, and private plaintiffs’ firms and some courts don’t treat any version or success level of WCAG as sufficient.³
What if you want to know whether your website is accessible? DOJ points out what experts in the area know; that is, automated solutions are unlikely to identify or solve all problems and do identify “errors” that don’t interfere with accessibility. You can’t rely on them, but DOJ’s suggestion about dealing with that unreliability isn’t very comforting: “Pairing a manual check of a website with the use of automated checkers can give you a better sense of the accessibility of your website” While it is certainly nice to have a “better sense” of the accessibility of a website businesses need something definite – yes it is or no it is not accessible. They need an exact definition of accessibility so they know what to do in order to be exempt from litigation by DOJ and private plaintiffs.¹
It’s worth something to know you’re going to be hit by a train even if no one will tell you how to get off the track² so this Guidance isn’t completely useless. Nonetheless, it fails to deliver what businesses need. They needs fixed safe harbor definition of an accessible website, and they need relief from abusive website accessibility litigation. Moreover, by failing businesses the Guidance fails those with disabilities as well because businesses cannot be expected to invest in technology if they can’t be sure it will bring them into compliance with the law. DOJ needs to spend less time on press releases and more time on fulfilling its regulatory obligations under the ADA.
+++++++++++++++++++++
¹ Imagine if DOJ’s advice on the slopes of sidewalks was “using a high quality digital level will give you a better sense of the accessibility of your sidewalk.” As advice it is useless – businesses what to know what the maximum accessible slope is, not how you measure it.
² The resources offered in the Guidance are worthless to most small businesses because they are simply too technical. The first link offered, to the 18F Accessibility Guide, takes you to a cover page to a total of 26 other websites that have accessibility information, including another “tools” link that provides links to an additional 22 testing tools. None of the links go to material that anyone but an expert in website development could possibly understand. This is great for a business large enough to have an IT team and budget, but those businesses already know where to look for resources. This Guidance is useless for any business that doesn’t generate sufficient profits to pay for a dedicated IT staff.
³ I think it is interesting that the government has promulgated specific rules for accessibility of government websites, as DOJ admits, but DOJ won’t give businesses the benefit of the exact same rules. Is it bureaucratic arrogance? Some kind of power struggle between DOJ and the Access Board? Who knows. There are plenty of hardworking nice folks at DOJ, but as an institution it apparently doesn’t give a damn about the real problems of real businesses even though DOJ itself created those problems when it decreed, twenty years ago, that websites have to be accessible but then refused, and refuses even to this day, to say what “accessible” means.
The most important takeaway from the Guidance is the fact that the DOJ has issued Guidance at all on this topic. Indeed, on December 26, 2016, the DOJ Published a Notice of Withdrawal of Four Previously Announced Rulemaking Actions. See 82 Fed. Reg. 60932 (December 26, 2017). After years of silence on the issue of Title III of the ADA’s application to websites, the fact that the DOJ has turned its attention to this topic may indicate increased enforcement activity by the DOJ than in years past.
The DOJ specifically noted that in recent years, “a multitude of services have moved online, and people rely on websites like never before for all aspects of living,” including accessing voting information, finding up-to-date health and safety resources, and looking up mass transit schedules and fare information. The DOJ’s Guidance clarified that the Department has “consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.”
This guidance describes how state and local governments and businesses open to the public can make sure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Inaccessible web content means that people with disabilities are denied equal access to information. An inaccessible website can exclude people just as much as steps at an entrance to a physical location. Ensuring web accessibility for people with disabilities is a priority for the Department of Justice. In recent years, a multitude of services have moved online and people rely on websites like never before for all aspects of daily living. For example, accessing voting information, finding up-to-date health and safety resources, and looking up mass transit schedules and fare information increasingly depend on having access to websites.
People with disabilities navigate the web in a variety of ways. People who are blind may use screen readers, which are devices that speak the text that appears on a screen. People who are deaf or hard of hearing may use captioning. And people whose disabilities affect their ability to grasp and use a mouse may use voice recognition software to control their computers and other devices with verbal commands.
The ways that websites are designed and set up can create unnecessary barriers that make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use websites, just as physical barriers like steps can prevent some people with disabilities from entering a building. These barriers on the web keep people with disabilities from accessing information and programs that businesses and state and local governments make available to the public online. But these barriers can be prevented or removed so that websites are accessible to people with disabilities.
Examples of Website Accessibility Barriers
Poor color contrast. People with limited vision or color blindness cannot read text if there is not enough contrast between the text and background (for example, light gray text on a light-colored background).
Use of color alone to give information. People who are color-blind may not have access to information when that information is conveyed using only color cues because they cannot distinguish certain colors from others. Also, screen readers do not tell the user the color of text on a screen, so a person who is blind would not be able to know that color is meant to convey certain information (for example, using red text alone to show which fields are required on a form).
Lack of text alternatives (“alt text”) on images. People who are blind will not be able to understand the content and purpose of images, such as pictures, illustrations, and charts, when no text alternative is provided. Text alternatives convey the purpose of an image, including pictures, illustrations, charts, etc.
No captions on videos. People with hearing disabilities may not be able to understand information communicated in a video if the video does not have captions.
Inaccessible online forms. People with disabilities may not be able to fill out, understand, and accurately submit forms without things like:
Labels that screen readers can convey to their users (such as text that reads “credit card number” where that number should be entered);
Clear instructions; and
Error indicators (such as alerts telling the user a form field is missing or incorrect).
Mouse-only navigation (lack of keyboard navigation). People with disabilities who cannot use a mouse or trackpad will not be able to access web content if they cannot navigate a website using a keyboard.
When the ADA Requires Web Content to be Accessible
The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state and local governments (Title II) and businesses that are open to the public (Title III).
State and local governments (Title II)
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all services, programs, and activities of state and local governments. State and local governments must take steps to ensure that their communications with people with disabilities are as effective as their communications with others. Many state and local government services, programs, and activities are now being offered on the web. These include, for example, things like:
Applying for an absentee ballot;
Paying tickets or fees;
Filing a police report;
Attending a virtual town meeting;
Filing tax documents;
Registering for school or school programs; and
Applying for state benefits programs.
A website with inaccessible features can limit the ability of people with disabilities to access a public entity’s programs, services and activities available through that website—for example, online registration for classes at a community college.
For these reasons, the Department has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the services, programs, or activities of state and local governments, including those offered on the web.
Businesses that are open to the public (Title III)
Title III prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by businesses open to the public (also referred to as “public accommodations” under the ADA). The ADA requires that businesses open to the public provide full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with disabilities. Businesses open to the public must take steps to provide appropriate communication aids and services (often called “auxiliary aids and services”) where necessary to make sure they effectively communicate with individuals with disabilities. For example, communication aids and services can include interpreters, notetakers, captions, or assistive listening devices. Examples of businesses open to the public:
Retail stores and other sales or retail establishments;
Banks;
Hotels, inns, and motels;
Hospitals and medical offices;
Food and drink establishments; and
Auditoriums, theaters, and sports arenas.
A website with inaccessible features can limit the ability of people with disabilities to access a public accommodation’s goods, services, and privileges available through that website—for example, a veterans’ service organization event registration form.
For these reasons, the Department has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.
How to Make Web Content Accessible to People with Disabilities
Businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication. But they must comply with the ADA’s requirements.
The Department of Justice does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards, but the Department’s longstanding interpretation of the general nondiscrimination and effective communication provisions applies to web accessibility.1
Businesses and state and local governments can currently choose how they will ensure that the programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible to people with disabilities.
Even though businesses and state and local governments have flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication, they still must ensure that the programs, services, and goods that they provide to the public—including those provided online—are accessible to people with disabilities.
Businesses and state and local governments should consider a variety of website features when ensuring that their websites are accessible.
Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities is a Priority for the Department of Justice
When Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, it intended for the ADA to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of our times. Since 1996, the Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the ADA applies to web content. As the sample cases below show, the Department is committed to using its enforcement authority to ensure website accessibility for people with disabilities and to ensure that the goods, services, programs, and activities that businesses and state and local governments make available to the public are accessible.
Miami University in Ohio: The Department reached an agreement with Miami University in Ohio to resolve the United States’ lawsuit alleging that the university discriminated against students with disabilities by providing inaccessible web content and learning management systems.
Nueces County, Texas: The Department reached an agreement with Nueces County, Texas, to address claims that the County used an online conference registration form that was not accessible to people with disabilities who use software that reads text out loud.
Louisiana Tech: The Department reached an agreement with Louisiana Tech University to address claims that the university violated the ADA by using an online learning product that was inaccessible to a blind student.
Title III Sample Cases
Rite Aid Corporation: The Department reached an agreement with Rite Aid Corporation to address accessibility barriers in Rite Aid’s COVID-19 Vaccine Registration Portal.
Teachers Test Prep, Inc.: The Department reached an agreement with Teachers Test Prep, Inc., regarding complaints that the test prep company’s online video courses did not provide captions and were inaccessible to people who are deaf.
HRB Digital and HRB Tax Group (H&R Block): The Department reached an agreement with H&R Block to address claims that the company failed to code its website so that individuals with disabilities could use assistive technology such as screen reader software, refreshable Braille displays, keyboard navigation, and captioning.
Peapod: The Department reached an agreement with Peapod to address claims that its online grocery delivery services were not accessible to some individuals with disabilities.
Resources
18F Accessibility Guide: a comprehensive accessibility guide with resources published by 18F, a digital services agency under the General Services Administration (GSA).
Digital.gov: this site, which is part of the Technology Transformation Services at the GSA, has resources on design of products, devices, services, or environments for people with disabilities.
February 2022 Denver – The kiosk association is continuing to serve as an official media partner for the Infocomm tradeshow June 8-10 in Las Vegas. InfoComm 2022 is the once-a-year opportunity to see the latest audiovisual technology, learn the skills that will advance your career, and grow your professional network. We first became a media sponsor in 2021.
infocomm 2022
“The members of the kiosk association are much more diverse than just kiosks. Digital signage technology both hardware and software are integral to their complex business opportunities”, says Craig Keefner, manager for the association. InfoComm, ISE and now DSE are the new “must-be involved” list for our sponsors with strong digital signage and digital display technology.
There will be many more members “embedded” in the booths. That could be 22Miles software in the CISCO booth e.g.
For more information and a free exhibits-only registration contact [email protected]
ABOUT INFOCOMM
InfoComm is the most comprehensive event for audiovisual solutions that enable integrated experiences, with products for audio, conferencing and collaboration, digital signage, content, production and streaming, video capture and production, control, and live events.
Disabled people need access to all technology, including kiosks. Access to information and services on kiosks is a civil right. That means that kiosks have to be designed so people can use them if they are blind, deaf, use a wheelchair, or have other disabilities. This post includes resources that can help make kiosks accessible.
Disabled people and their lawyers are using the law to make sure kiosks work for everyone. There have been cases about health care kiosks and new technology that lets people pay for their meals at the table. Accessible kiosks guarantee privacy and confidentiality. Government agencies that buy kiosks should only buy accessible ones so everyone can use them.
This article is updated whenever there is a new legal development about accessible kiosks for people with disabilities. The most recent update was posted on December 31, 2021.
Article updated
This article has been updated since it was first published on January 30, 2018. The most recent update was added on December 31, 2021. Read the updates for this article.
Website accessibility is important. Website accessibility is something that receives significant attention in the legal space. But digital accessibility is not just about websites, and the law is taking notice.
This post highlights lawsuits, Structured Negotiations, and other legal activity about kiosk accessibility.
I use the term “kiosk” broadly to include tablets and any piece of technology offering services, products, and information. Who will use that technology? People — and that means disabled people.
And that means the technology has to be usable by everyone, including people who cannot see a screen, hear a video, or use a mouse.
How do you make sure your kiosk is accessible? This is not a technical post, but one thing is certain: if there is no audio output and available input method for those who can’t see a screen, the kiosk is off limits to a blind person. If it has video but no captions, the kiosk is unavailable to a deaf person. And if controls are out of reach range, wheelchair users cannot get to the information.
As with all technology, one piece of the accessibility puzzle is having disabled people give feedback along the way and before deployment. The tech version of the civil rights slogan, “nothing about us without us.”)
The revised Section 508 guidelines (federal procurement regulations) specifically identify kiosks as covered information and communication technology (ICT). The Americans with Disabilities Act’s non-discrimination and effective communication provisions are broad enough to embrace kiosk accessibility. State procurement and anti-discrimination laws are part of the strong foundation supporting kiosk accessibility in the United States.
Around the globe accessibility policies support kiosk accessibility, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) lay the foundation for international access. Smart cities aren’t smart enough if public kiosks cannot be used by everyone.
Here are some recent happenings in the kiosk accessibility legal space in the U.S. Whether you are in #HealthTech, #MedTech, #FinTech, #EdTech or any sort of tech, put accessibility on your to do list. Accessibility is about people and accessibility is a civil right. Kiosks without access may as well have a “do not use this machine” sign on them.
Accessibility must be a core value in health care technology. Without it, there is no privacy or confidentiality because disabled people are forced to ask for help to do things that could be done independently with accessibility features.
DOJ gets involved in Quest Diagnostics kiosk accessibility lawsuit
On September 20, 2021, the United States Department of Justice filed a “Statement of Interest” in a federal court case in Los Angeles called Vargas and the American Council of the Blind v. Quest Diagnostics. The case is about Quest Diagnostic’s failure to make its kiosks accessible to blind people. The DOJ’s statement supports the plaintiffs’ claim that inaccessible kiosks violate the ADA.
A government agency can file a Statement of Interest to let a court know the agency’s view on a law it is in charge of implementing. The DOJ interprets and implements the ADA, and told the judge in the case it was filing the statement because:
As the agency charged by Congress with administering theADA, the United States Department of Justice has a vital interest in ensuring that public accommodations’ use of such kiosks does not result in discrimination
against individuals with disabilities. DOJ Statement of Interest in Quest kiosk case
The DOJ’s statement explains that companies like Quest (with over 2,000 locations across the United States) must effectively communicate with disabled people. The technical term is that organizations covered by the ADA must provide “auxiliary aids and services.” The Statement told the court that
Particularly significant here, the regulations provide additional examples of auxiliary aids and services that may provide effective communication, including “accessible electronic and information technology.” Id. § 36.303(b). The regulations also clarify that auxiliary aids and services must be provided “in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability” in order to be effective.
In July, 2016, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy, along with the National Federation of the Blind announced a settlement with Pursuant Health, Inc. to make that company’s self-service health care kiosks accessible to blind consumers. These kiosks offer services including vision assessments, blood pressure screening, weight and BMI assessments, and pain management advice.
One of the most basic civil rights principles is that governments cannot provide services and information if disabled people will be locked out because of the lack of access. As more public services and information move to kiosks, more attention must be paid to kiosk accessibility in the government sector. Here are two examples where the law has gotten involved.
In August 2017 the National Federation of the Blind and two blind individuals filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Social Security Administration for “failure to make its Visitor Intake Processing touchscreen kiosks accessible to its blind visitors.”According to the press release, the lack of access has a direct impact on privacy and confidentiality. Blind social security recipients are “forced to divulge private information, such as their social security numbers, to SSA staff or other sighted third parties to assist them.”
Local governments are using kiosks too. As I reported in the March 2017 Legal Update about New York City:Public money must not be spent on technology unless all members of the public can use it — including disabled people. We were once again reminded of this important principle on January 17, 2017 when a settlement was announced about the accessibility of New York City’s public info kiosks.The kiosks provide millions of New York residents and visitors free mobile device charging, domestic phone calls, access to city services, and a dedicated function to reach 911. Thanks to a settlement negotiated by Disability Rights Advocate on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, those kiosks are now available to everyone. (The picture at the top of this post is a close-up of the NY kiosks with accessibility features including a headphone jack and tactile keypad.)
I had the privilege to spend time in Australia last year, and fell in love with the country and made and strengthened friendships with people in the accessibility and disability communities. Advocates, corporate and government champions, and skilled consultants are working hard to ensure accessibility in various sectors and across a host of technology. Special shout out to the Digital Gap Initiative for useful policy links below.
But I was disappointed to encounter a completely inaccessible kiosk in the heart of the Sydney (picture above) — a kiosk that runs contrary to a significant number of forward-thinking policies in my new favorite place to visit.
If these commitments do not translate into actual accessibility on the ground, disabled people are left out. Implementation of international, national, state, and local policies is a crucial step in digital inclusion for disabled people. Plain and simple, governments should not be procuring and/or installing anything that all members of the public cannot use.
In higher education, as in most other sectors, schools increasingly turn to kiosks to provide information, convenience, and services to students. Accessibility agreements in the legal space have been all encompassing when mandating accessibility and accessible procurement policies.
These agreements, both private and through the US Department of Education, include kiosks in the definition of electronic and information technology (EIT), and serve as a reminder that a system-wide policy is needed to avoid inaccessible purchases in the higher education setting.
I read many higher education policies on line about accessible technologies generally, web technologies specifically. I recommend putting kiosks into the specific category to avoid the purchase of any technology falling through the cracks!
Using new and advanced technology, enhancements to existing accessibility features include screen-reading software, tactile keypads and the ability for customers to connect their headphones or ear buds to the kiosk and independently place their orders by responding to audio prompts.
No lawsuit was needed in the effort with McDonald’s.
In January, 2018 the National Federation of the Blind announced a partnership with a major manufacturer of table-top tablets increasingly used in restaurants for ordering, payment and more. The partnership will “produce a text-to-speech capability for the PrestoPrime EMV System that will be incorporated into all current and future Presto tablets, including those used in Applebee’s Grill + Bar restaurants nationwide.” The settlement agreement outlining the details shares that the parties used Structured Negotiation to reach agreement. Download the settlement agreement from the case announcement.
The new functionality will enable “blind persons to interact with the Presto System.”
The basic right to shop independently without having to disclose confidential financial information or rely on sighted assistance has long been the subject of legal advocacy. This includes shopping via kiosks, as a 2014 settlement with Redbox movie kiosks demonstrates.
In August of that year Disability Rights Advocates and the San Francisco Lighthouse for the Blind announced a settlement with Redbox in which the company agreed to make all its movie rental kiosks in California accessible to people with disabilities. Read the Redbox accessibility press release.
The settlement also included a 1.2 million dollar fund to be used to compensate blind customers prevented from using Redbox kiosks due to lack of access. And the California settlement was followed by a national settlement that brought accessible talking kiosks to the rest of the country.
Talking ATMs: Accessible Financial Technology Still Needed Around the World
Talking ATMs have shown since 1999 that financial kiosks must — and can be — accessible. In the United States the Americans with Disabilities Act has long required that ATMs talk, and advocates made that law a reality with significant numbers of Structured Negotiations and some lawsuits in the late 1990’s and throughout the 2000s.
But financial technology is global, and accessibility must be global too. Last month came news of the first Talking ATMs in the United Arab Emirates. The machines spoke in Arabic and English, and the Braille was in two languages too.
But the devices were manufactured by Diebold – one of the early Talking ATM manufacturers in the United States. What took so long for Talking ATMs to get to the UAE?
That country ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities in 2008. Accessible technology is embedded in the Convention. Manufacturers should not be shipping financial technology (#FinTech) without access. The UNCRPD must be implemented to ensure technology remains available to disabled people.
[Curious about the history of Talking ATMs? Visit the Talking ATM topic page on this website for more than 60 posts about this bedrock of accessible financial industry technology.
It’s ironic. In 2013 I wrote a post bemoaning the molasses-like regulations that gave airlines too much time to install accessible kiosks. Read “It’s hard to be Optimistic about the New DOT Web and Kiosk Regulations.” But even with all the time alotted them some airlines did not meet initial deadlines, and thus the DOT’s settlement announcement.
Accessible airline kiosks have been on the market for years. Disabled people travel. Let’s make accessible airline kiosks a reality everywhere.
Resources for Accessible Kiosks
Here are some resources for those seeking to advocate for and develop kiosks that can be used by everyone, including people with disabilities. Please use the Contact Page to send other resources.
The American Council of the Blind’s lawsuit against Quest Diagnostics about the companies inaccessible kiosks continues, with new rulings that allow the case to continue. First, in September 2021, Quest asked the Court to rule that Quest’s kiosks did not violate the ADA. On October 15, 2021, the Court rejected Quest’s request, finding that Quest’s kiosks are a part of the service that Quest provides. Because of that, Quest must provide what is legally referred to as “auxiliary aids and services” to render the kiosks accessible to blind patients.
Auxiliary aids and services are methods that allow a company to effectively communicate with its blind or deaf customers. In this case, auxiliary aids and services would make the visually delivered content and features of the kiosks usable by people who cannot see. The parties can still fight over the precise methods, but this is a big win for the plaintiff to move the case forward. (The judge even found that Quest has conceded that its kiosks, as originally developed, did not provide “effective communication” with blind individuals.)
In a different court order in December, 2021, the court certified a class of blind people, meaning the case can go forward as a class action on the issue of fixing the kiosks. In the class action ruling, the court wrote that “This is a civil rights action against a party charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination based on the use of a specific auxiliary aid or service, and is a prime candidate for certification.” By certifying a nationwide class of blind Quest customers, the court has expressed its opinion that modifications to Quest’s kiosks must be made at all locations across the country.
Updated to include a link to an article on this website about a U.S. court opinion in the case about Walmart self-check kiosks. On October 12, 2021 a federal judge ruled that Walmart was not required under the ADA to make its kiosks usable by blind people. Read the article about the Walmart kiosk case, U.S. Federal Judge Rules for Walmart, against Blind Shoppers, in Self-checkout Kiosk Case
(1) Updated the Healthcare Kiosks section of this article to include United States Department of Justice activity supporting a lawsuit about healthcare kiosk accessibility. (2) Updated the Restaurant Kiosks section to include McDonald’s commitment to accessible kiosks.
Updating to include the April 20, 2021 announcement from the National Federation of the Blind titled California DMV Kiosks to Become More Accessible to the Blind. Note that this was not a lawsuit, but a collaboration between the NFB, California Department of Motor Vehicles and Intellectual Technology, Inc., a provider of self-service kiosks. Congratulations to Tim Elder of the TRELegal Practice for representing the NFB in this case.
After the NFB filed its lawsuit against Walmart described in the October 2018 update below, the company tried to get the case thrown out of court. After legal briefing and argument, the court ruled on October 18, 2019 that the case can move forward in court. The case will now move to the discovery phase unless the parties settle.
On October 26, 2018 a federal lawsuit was filed against Walmart challenging the retailer’s self-checkout kiosks that are not independently usable by and accessible to blind customers.The case began when a Walmart employee helping two blind customers stole their money while providing assistance that was requested because the self-checkout technology was not accessible. The case was filed by the National Federation of the Blind and the two blind Walmart customers. Read the press release about the inaccessible Walmart checkout kiosks.
Yesterday, President Joe Biden appointed eight new members to the U.S. Access Board. He also reappointed incumbent Board member, Gregory S. Fehribach who is currently the Board’s Chair.
“I am honored that President Biden has reappointed me to the United States Access Board, and I look forward to working with the new appointees from the Biden-Harris team as we serve Americans with Disabilities. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues who will be leaving the Board and recognize them for their selfless service and time that they have given our country.”
Elver Ariza-Silva is active in advocacy efforts for all people with disabilities, with a focus on those who are Latino in the District of Columbia. Originally from the Republic of Colombia, Ariza-Silva is a polio survivor and a professional with more than 20 years combined experience in human and social services and in the food industry.
Heather Dowdy
With fifteen years of experience developing and demonstrating accessible technology in mobile, web and artificial intelligence, Heather Dowdy currently leads Accessibility at Netflix, leveraging technology to connect people with disabilities to their next favorite story. As the oldest daughter of Deaf parents, Dowdy is fluent in American Sign Language (ASL).
Mozhdeh Amelia Hamraie
Dr. Aimi Hamraie (they/them) is a disabled designer and scholar, with expertise in architectural and digital media accessibility. They are the author of Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability (University of Minnesota Press, 2017), a history of the Universal Design movement and accessibility standards in the United States. Hamraie works as Associate Professor of Medicine, Health, & Society and American Studies at Vanderbilt University.
Hannah Raissa Ibañez
Hannah Raissa Ibañez, Esq. currently works as a Senior Staff Attorney on the Tenant Defense Project for Inner City Law Center, a non-profit law firm that provides free legal services to vulnerable residents of Los Angeles. In this role, she provides litigation defense to low-income tenants, working poor families, immigrants, people who are living with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, and veterans facing homelessness and eviction.
Alexis Ander Kashar
Alexis Kashar is a civil rights attorney, business leader, and technologist. She grew up in a multi-generational Deaf family that encouraged her interest in civil rights and accessibility from an early age. For over two decades, she was among a small group of Deaf attorneys in the world practicing civil rights and special education law in the private sector, where she fought for a more accessible world.
KR Liu
KR Liu is a leader in the area of disability inclusion and LGBTQ rights. Diagnosed with severe hearing loss at the age of three, she’s made it her life’s work to be a strong advocate for disabled people. As the Head of Brand Accessibility at Google, Brand Studio she drives innovation of representation for diverse disabled audiences, a segment that historically has been overlooked.
Benjamin William Julian Nadolsky
Benjamin Nadolsky of Knoxville, Tennessee is the principal of Nadolsky Consulting Group LLC, a firm specializing in education, accessibility, and disability rights. He is on the Board of Directors for the World Institute on Disability and the Pennhurst Preservation & Memorial Alliance Advisory Board.
Madeline Rose Ruvolo
Madeline Ruvolo is a transportation planner on the Accessible Services team at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. She specializes in the accessibility of active transportation and emerging mobility projects and programs.
Gregory S. Fehribach
Board Chair Gregory S. Fehribach of Indiana is a leader in accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities. An attorney for over thirty-five years who is affiliated with the Indianapolis law firm Tuohy, Bailey, & Moore, LLP, Fehribach founded The Fehribach Group in 1995, where he provides innovative access solutions to clients nationwide who are seeking to create an accessible environment that is welcoming to all guests.
These appointments succeed Board members Regina Blye, Patrick D. Cannon, Marc D. Guthrie, Christopher Stephen Hart, Mathew McCollough, Howard A. Rosenblum, and Rochelle Gill Siegel.
“I thank these members for their service and time on the Board. They have provided a valuable contribution to the public and future generations in advancing accessibility throughout society,” Board Executive Director Sachin Pavithran remarked. “I also welcome and am excited to work with the diverse group of new members to advance the Board’s mission.”
The U.S. Access Board is an independent federal agency that provides leadership in accessible design under the ADA and other laws. The Board is structured to function as a coordinating body among Federal agencies and to directly represent the public, particularly people with disabilities. Twelve members of the governing Board are representatives from most of the federal departments. The other thirteen are comprised of members of the public appointed by the President to four-year terms. More information can be found on the Board Members webpage.
McDonalds has taken the lead in testing and evaluating at large scale providing accessibility features for the blind. One of the improvements is by adding in a screen reader (JAWS Kiosk by Vispero) and coupling that with Storm Interface AudioNav assistive technology.
Providing accessibility to every user group has taken on an even more pronounced imperative with the recent legal suit and class action which the DOJ is pursuing against Quest Diagnostics. The probable outcome there is a nationwide retrofit of literally thousands of units. See our Legal News summary page.
Kiosk Marketplace wrote up their recent Lunch And Learn which talked about the new McDonalds kiosk accessibility features.
Highlights
Kelsey Hall, senior product manager, global digital accessibility, McDonald’s, and Matt Ater, vice president of business development and software engineering at Vispero, demonstrated how McDonald’s digital accessibility works.
The demo used headphones. Note in the video above the NFB opts for public audio. Ambient noise can make it more difficult for a human to hear, or for a microphone with noise cancellation to discrimminate.
Mentioned too is the kiosk also has Braille labels at any point of actionable contact, such as the scan area, the headphone insert, the receipt area and the payment pad.
Asked about the possibility of offering voice recognition, Hall said voice recognition cannot replace the current solution. “Even if you have voice recognition options there are some limitations based on connectivity.”
I had the privilege to spend time in Australia last year, and fell in love with the country and made and strengthened friendships with people in the accessibility and disability communities. Advocates, corporate and government champions, and skilled consultants are working hard to ensure accessibility in various sectors and across a host of technology. Special shout out to the 
