12/5/2007

Participants

  • LuAnn DeRocchi, CMS
  • Andy Georgopoulos, CMS
  • Jon Gunderson, UIUC
  • Nick Hoyt, UIUC
  • Janise King, CAWS
  • Rick Kirchgesner, DHS MIS
  • Tony Moore, CMS
  • Janet Peters, Great Lakes ADA Center
  • Dave Porter
  • Hadi Rangin, UIUC
  • Bill Reif, NFBI
  • Melissa Romanotto, DHS DRS
  • Ron Sanderson, CMS
  • Mike Scott, DHS DRS
  • DiAnna Thompson, DHS MIS
  • Joel Turner, Revenue
  • Ken Welch
  • Terrence Wright, SIU
  • Martha Younger-White, CAWS

Review of Updates to the IITAA Standards Draft

Two new definitions have been added to the draft:

  1. Leading Assistive Technologies - The most widely-used assistive technology products, usually including the two most recent production versions of the two most popular products in each category based on market share. For example, as of January 1, 2008, this would include ZoomText 8 & 9 and MAGic 10 & 11 (screen magnifiers), JAWS 8 & 9 and Window-Eyes 5 & 6 (screen readers), Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8 & 9 and ViaVoice 9 & 10 (speech recognition software). State entities may require compatibility with other specific products/versions when necessary.
  2. Substantial Modifications - Changes to existing information technology where significant new functionality is being added or a move to a new technical platform is being made. This also includes making existing technology available to a new audience, such as a new agency or the public. Additionally, any modification that is expected to cost more than 20% of the original development cost or more than 20% of the total annual maintenance cost of the existing technology is a substantial modification.

Discussion of Leading Assistive Technologies Definition

The purpose of the definition is to give developers who may be using unknown or non-conventional coding techniques some guidelines for how to test for accessibility. We are not dictating which technologies should be used by state employees or the public, but just trying to help developers identify the most common software.

Some participants expressed concerns that listing product names might be inappropriate. It was suggested that the product names be removed from the definition. Perhaps we can refer to a source that lists market shares of assistive technology software. No one is aware of a single site that does this.

Please send suggestions for updated wording to dhs.accessibility@illinois.gov.

Discussion of Substantial Modifications Definition

What about a new maintenance release that makes a product less accessible? We want to make it clear that systems should not be made less accessible, even if the modification is not substantial.

Martha will send some wording from the feds that we might borrow for our definition.

Changes to the Implementation Guidelines

Changed 3.2 to require a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.

Changed 7.1 and 7.2 (and provisions c & d in the video & multimedia section) to specify essential information that is provided to the public use and/or required to by viewed by employees.

Martha and Jon suggested that we refer to the US Department of Education to provide guidance for students in university settings. They will send a reference or some language.

13.3 and 13.4 contain technical changes that already have been discussed with the web technical group.

Other Questions or Concerns about the Draft

Should we have some sort of provision about training for people with disabilities? The November 27th TEITAC draft has a new provision (1.2-C) that we could use. We also could expand our Information, Documentation, and Support section to include some of the other provisions in the TEITAC draft.

A question regarding when the commercial unavailability exception would be applicable was posed. It is meant as an exception for inherently visual IT, such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems). Perhaps we can change the wording to read "These standards do not apply if there is no information technology for a given purpose available in the commercial marketplace that complies with these standards and equivalent alternatives are not possible."

Can we tighten up the language in the undue burden exception? Undue burden is evaluated on a case by case basis. We will need to develop a process for claiming and evaluating claims of undue burden.

Review of Updates to TEITAC Draft

The November 27th TEITAC draft contains several changes:

  • The functional performance criteria have been moved out of the technical provisions section.
  • A functional performance criterion for people who are deaf-blind has been added.
  • A new exception for "inherently visual E&IT access" has been added.
  • Several new provisions have been added for better harmonization with WCAG 2.0.

We will evaluate these changes and will update the IITAA standards draft as needed.

Next Steps

We will schedule another meeting with the appropriate procurement and legal staff from CMS to discuss where and how to insert the IITAA standards into the procurement process.

The next IITAA Workgroup Teleconference will be held on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at the Hay-Edwards Building, Room 325, 400 W Lawrence, Springfield from 1:30 PM to 4:00 PM. The teleconference number is 1-800-930-8829. The passcode is 9125949#. If you need a special accommodation, please email dhs.accessibility@illinois.gov.