STATUS OF SECTION 508 IMPLEMENTATION

Testimony for the National Council on Disability

June 12, 1991

by

Lawrence A. Scadden, Ph.D.

Electronic Industries Foundation

In 1983, persons with disabilities, their advocates, and service providers began to be concerned that the evolution of microcomputers could curtail use by many people who had special access needs. For example, closed computer architecture hindered attachment of synthetic speech and braille displays needed by individuals with visual impairments and keyboard emulators needed by individuals with motor limitations. Similarly, introduction of computer systems based on visually compelling features--such as icons, mice, and pull down windows--excluded use by people who were blind.

An industry/government Initiative on Computer Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities was organized in 1984 for the purpose of sensitizing computer manufacturers to the accessibility needs of a rapidly growing number of computer users who had found increased independence, productivity, and quality of life through computer usage. By 1985, a movement was launched to influence the accessibility of microcomputers and other electronic office equipment through Congressional action. Two opposing approaches were suggested. One would mandate manufacturers to build access technology (e.g., synthetic speech, braille, keyboard emulators) into their products.

The second approach intended to use the power of market demand to affect product accessibility. The latter approach was written into the Rehabilitation Act as Section 508 and into subsequent guidelines and regulations developed by the General Services Administration (GSA) working with the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and the electronics industry. The philosophy underlying the market demand approach was, and continues to be, that industry will design, produce, and distribute products being purchased by the United States government, the single largest consumer of electronic products; and the products will comply with specifications announced by governmental procurement officers.

Proponents of the market demand approach felt that several factors made it preferable to the alternative. First, it gave industry and product developers ample room to continue advancing information technology and to find innovative means of providing full access to persons with disabilities. Second, accessible products and techniques developed for sale to the Federal government would also be made available to the general public on the open market. Third, the approach would give persons with disabilities flexibility in obtaining the most appropriate access technologies and techniques needed by them. A wide selection of access technologies have been developed by, and are available from, small companies that specialize in the technological needs of persons with disabilities. Individual needs and preferences might be addressed most fully by allowing manufacturers of electronic office equipment to bundle their products with specialized access devices rather than needing to develop their own access systems.

Today's assessment of the relative success of Section 508 in promoting improved access to electronic office equipment for persons with disabilities results in mixed reviews. On one hand, manufacturers are making sincere efforts to comply with procurement requests that contain accessibility specifications and to seek methods to ensure improved accessibility in future generations of their products. On the other hand, many Federal employees with disabilities still do not have accessible office equipment, and many electronic information technologies in the marketplace still are not accessible. My personal analysis, however, shows that Section 508 is definitely effective albeit slow to be implemented fully.

Some critics of the relatively slow progress of Section 508 implementation state that the commercial availability of inaccessible electronic office equipment is an indication that industry is not acting in good faith. They, however, should remember that Section 508 places the burden of accessibility directly on government procurement and program officers, only secondarily on industry. Industry is at fault when it fails to comply with procurement specifications. Its penalty, under law, is the inability to secure governmental sales. When a sale of inaccessible electronic office equipment is consummated by a vendor to the Federal government, fault must be placed on the doorstep of government officers.

Several points in the government's procurement procedures account for delays in full implementation of, or compliance with, Section 508.

Many of us thought at the beginning of 508 implementation that the greatest impact on the design of accessible products would come through large governmental procurements. Experience suggests that this belief was sound, product design is driven by large procurements; but history now shows that the distribution of accessible equipment to employees who have disabilities is not necessarily tied to these large procurements. Although GSA has responsibility for overseeing governmental procurement of office equipment, only a relatively small portion of these purchases are made through large purchases that require preapproval by GSA. Smaller procurements--generally under $2,500,000--can be made under "delegated authority" granted agencies by GSA.

Subsequent to the official implementation of Section 508 in October, 1988, time was needed to train procurement officers throughout the government, and time has been needed for departments and agencies to develop large procurement requests that contain Section 508 language. During this time frame, only the Departments of State, Education, and Veteran Affairs, and the Social Security Administration have completed large procurement requests for electronic office equipment. In each case, appropriate language concerning the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities was included; and, in each case, vendors have complied.

Many other departments and agencies are preparing to make large procurements of electronic office equipment. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working on a $1.7 billion dollar procurement program that will have accessibility language contained in three separate large procurements. USDA policy is to have all of its electronic equipment provide accessibility by 1995. The process will be achieved through equipment upgrades, not through retrofits.

Elsewhere, GSA has issued two contracts for hardware purchases that included accessibility language. HUD is putting accessibility language in its purchase handbook. The Department of the Treasury, in January 1990, conducted a survey of its employees as the first step in developing a large procurement request.

Even when large procurements of accessible electronic office equipment are made by Federal agencies, employees with disabilities are not assured of obtaining needed access technology. Often, program managers in the branches where the employee works must make an official purchase request for the needed equipment. Many program officers do not know the policies regulating accessibility and accommodations for persons with disabilities. They may also have equipment budgets that seriously limit their equipment acquisitions, and personal or branch priorities may not place access technology high on the list of equipment to be secured.

The vast majority of governmental purchases of electronic office equipment made in the last three years were not made through large GSA-monitored procurements. It was made under delegated authority. Many of these purchasing agencies subsequently were reviewed by GSA, but many were not. GSA regularly conducts triennial reviews of each agency's practices to ensure that it has complied with regulations, as those contained in the Federal Information Resource Management Regulations (FIRMR) that addresses topics such as computer security, privacy, budgeting, standards, reporting, and accessibility. In these reviews, GSA points out deficiencies and may decrease procurement autonomy if FIRMR compliance is inadequate.

It must be pointed out that many employees with disabilities have obtained accessible office equipment since the enactment of Section 508 even through small procurements. For example, the Department of Justice issued 70 small purchase contracts to meet the needs of its employees who have disabilities.

The spirit of Section 508 is being adhered to by many procurement and program managers throughout government. Many of these officials are obtaining guidance and assistance from GSA's Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodations (COCA). COCA provides regular training programs for governmental officers and provides technical assistance upon request to employees who seek information on accessibility for computers, telecommunication systems, and other electronic office equipment. This is both education and service aimed at acquisition planning for accessibility. Over 1500 managers have asked COCA for assistance. About 12 briefings have been held, and 32 agencies have been represented. Many departments and agencies now have established their own offices on accessibility, their own small COCAs.

Numerous examples can be cited to show that industry is seriously attempting to comply with the spirit of Section 508 as well as with specific procurement requests. One indication of the interest and responsiveness of large manufacturers has been seen and reported by small companies that design and produce specialized, access technology for persons with disabilities. This new industry is growing and its quality is improving because Section 508 is promoting strong relationships with large vendors. Many of these small companies have been contacted by eight or ten large manufacturers for collaboration in responding to governmental procurement requests. A collaborative approach is good for industry, and it is good for the employees with disabilities because there is strong likelihood that appropriate access devices and techniques will be secured.

Many large corporations have also taken proactive steps to meet the special accessibility needs of persons with disabilities. I know of at least six major corporations that have established divisions dedicated solely to studying ways that either existing or future generations of their products can best be made accessible to as many users who have special needs as possible. In some cases, these programs have led to the design and production of special access systems to be used with current products. In other firms, extensive investigations are being conducted to study the access needs of persons with disabilities and how they might be affected--both positively and negatively--by products or systems currently in the design phase within the corporation. Design engineers have been instructed to find solutions to the identified problems. Finally, at least four corporations are developing written guidelines to be used within their firms by design engineers to ensure that new products will be accessible or can be made accessible with the addition of specific access devices.

GSA implementation and enforcement activities must provide more education and service for program as well as procurement managers. COCA has an important role to play in an expanded educational program, but the magnitude of the effort is too large for one GSA office such as COCA. Education and training on accessibility must be infused into all GSA training programs. GSA operates a "trail boss program" that provides training for senior procurement officers on all issues contained within the FIRMR. Managers receive a two week course so they can move relatively independently in organizing large procurements, although GSA provides follow-up guidance and assistance. More information on accessibility should be folded into the "trail boss" training program. Information and guidance on product accessibility should be incorporated into all other GSA management training courses and in all information resource management (IRM) guidance materials.

One technological area is still a great concern to most of us involved in promoting accessibility to electronic office equipment. Computer displays that are based on a video image, rather than on the display of individual letters, is becoming commonplace. This technique, often called a graphical user interface, has yet to be resolved satisfactorily for blind users although progress has been made by some manufacturers. Governmental procurement and program officers must be very cautious when considering the purchase of new computer hardware and software because they may seriously affect the productivity of blind employees and potential employees. Other emerging technologies must also be studied carefully by GSA. For example, CD-ROM is growing in popularity as a medium for storing large quantities of information and raw data. The format in which this information is stored on the CD-ROM again may limit access to blind users.

Program and procurement managers should discuss with GSA officers, and through them with industry, their projected accessibility needs. This consultation should take place as far in advance of procurement as possible to avoid delays in providing employees who have disabilities the accessibility they need.

The goal today must be to speed up and expand the current process, not change its direction. Market demand, the power of the buyer, still can be more significant than policy requirements. For centuries, people with disabilities have been expected to endure patiently the inadequacy of services.

I understand the desire for more tangible results from Section 508, but I feel confident that the correct direction has been set. The implementation process now must be speeded up. This will require two sustained efforts: First, GSA must provide all Federal program and procurement managers increased education, training materials, and technical services. Second, GSA must diligently enforce the accessibility regulations, both in large procurements and in small ones, even if the latter must be handled triennially. Section 508 was landmark legislation to bring electronic accessibility to persons with disabilities, and it is definitely having its intended positive effects.