[CATO] Interagency Accessibility Forum

Wed May 21 13:56:01 PDT 2025

¡Hola!

At some point, I ended up registering for the   Interagency Accessibility Forum and I forgot to share about such opportunity with all of you. My apologies!

The forum took place yesterday and today. Great presentations. Some demos about new accessibility tools for example for navigating physical spaces (MABLEmaps<https://www.mablemaps.com/> or UNav<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9696753/>), Graphics Accessibility solution (Inclusio<https://inclusiocommunity.com/>)  or AI transcription enhancements for people with speech disabilities (Heardai.ai<https://www.heardai.ai/>). The bulk of the sessions were about the 508 annual assessment process, procurement, Accessibility Compliance Reports, Accessibility Requirements Tool (ART) and Solicitation Review Tool (SRT)

Session descriptions and slide presentations available for download at https://www.section508.gov/iaaf/archives/agenda-2025/. Some videos might be posted once they are made accessible (captions + descriptive video).

Below, the content of a couple of slides along with a section of the live transcript when the presenter, Jessie Weber, discussed exceptions to the rule and some of the Q&A's responses that followed

ADA Title 2 Web & Mobile Accessibility

•Overview: Part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), focusing on state and local government services

•Applicability: all state and local governments (which includes any agencies or departments of state or local governments) as well as special purpose districts, Amtrak, and other commuter authorities.
•Effective Date(s):
▪Depends on government size: (50,000+) April 2026;  (special districts, >50,000) April 2027
•Technical Standards developed by the U.S. Department of Justice
▪WCAG version: 2.1 Level AA, Conforming Alternate Version (limited)
•Enforcement & Penalties: primarily DOJ, DOE (educational institutions), and others
•Covered ICT Examples: Websites (county library, public school LMS), Mobile Apps (city parking app)
•Exceptions: 1. Archived web content, 2. Preexisting conventional electronic documents, 3. Content posted by a third party where the third party is not posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a public entity, 4. Individualized documents that are password-protected, 5. Preexisting social media posts.

Live Transcript:

Let me talk about the exceptions to the new web regulation. I will preface this so I try not to repeat after each one the exceptions do not mean the public entity don't have to make these types of content accessible. What it means they don't have to ensure right off the bat proactively all are being offered an accessible format but if somebody requests to access information and need it accessibly the public entity still has to provide it and they still have to provided in accordance with the existing Title 2 regulations which says timely basis. I will talk about each exception but I think it's important for public entities or anyone doing business with them to know entities still need a plan in place for quickly providing all of these types of documents, web content examples, and accessible format quickly upon request. They can't sit back and do nothing in these areas.

The first category is archived web content, this is part of web content created before the compliance date under the new regs is kept only or reference researcher record-keeping it has to be kept in a special area for archived content and labeled as such and there can't be any changes if you change 1 thing and that archived content, you have to make the whole thing accessible

The second is pre-existing conventional electronic documents, I think probably a lot of PDFs if they were available before compliance not currently being used they can remain as is until someone requests an accessible version. However if any are still being used to apply for program or service, access program or service in any way expected to be used, this does not apply they have to be posted accessibly on the website.

The third exception is third-party content and this is limited. I want to be clear this is about work third party post content on a public entities website and the public entity did not ask them to do it the example is a comment on a message board. In that example the message board itself becomes a public entity still needs to be accessible if someone posts something inaccessible in a comment the public entity is not responsible for proactively making it accessible. If someone requests it they need to make it accessible. This does not cover anything the public entity asks the third party to put on their website so a calendar or weather widget even if the third party makes it if the public entity invites it to be on the website it needs to make sure it's accessible.

Fourth exception is individualized documents password-protected you can think about bank bills or individual utility bills, they cannot be documents that have to be account person secured in some way. They need to be made accessible on demand in the fifth category is pre-existing social media posts may be for the compliance date. The others I will know there are general defenses that exist under Title 2 which is undue burden and undo administrative financial burden, would be costly or difficult that way more fundamental alteration your asking us to make a new website fundamentally alter the services we provide I will note both defenses are difficult to meet. There has to be a statement in writing from the head of the public entity or designee explaining the rationale and they kind of looked at the resources available, and still reach the conclusion. I can tell you from an enforcement perspective I really see public entities do that. It exists those are defenses but are challenging to establish. I will point out a couple of things I think are notable not subject to these exception there was some debate during the proposed rulemaking process whether they ought to be exempt or not. They are not, so a big area is education, I think institutions of higher education were trying to advocate for a wait and see students with disabilities can't we wait for them to come to us and then we will make materials accessible. And they said no, the DOJ said how long it can take to make materials accessible and students have deadlines. It's a stressful environment so schools need to plan ahead even before a single student with a disability in roles in the school or class all digital content needs to be accessible including password-protected course materials and educational technology needs to be accessible from the get go.

A public library everything needs to be accessible captioning for live audio content does not fall into an exception that needs to be happening now.

ADA Resources
 •Fact Sheet<https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/>: This document provides a high-level summary of the rule. It is designed to provide an overview of the rule’s main requirements for state and local governments.
•Small Entity Compliance Guide<https://www.ada.gov/resources/small-entity-compliance-guide/>: The Department issued a guide to assist small entities in complying with the rule.
•Planning for Compliance<https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-rule-first-steps/>: This resource includes suggested steps that ADA Coordinators and others may want to take to prepare their state or local governments to comply with the rule.
•Webinar: Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Web & Mobile Application Accessibility Rule<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhIGSvJC2o>
•ADA Subpart H —Web and Mobile Accessibility<https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/regulations/title-ii-2010-regulations/>
•www.ada.gov<http://www.ada.gov/>
•ADA Information Line
▪800-514-0301 | 1-833-610-1264 (TTY)
▪M, Tu, W, F: 9:30am - 12pm and 3pm - 5:30pm ET
▪Th: 2:30pm - 5:30pm ET
Q&A

Could you discuss an accessible format vs. the user's preferred format?  If an entity merely provides an accessible format, is that sufficient?

Jessie Weber: Under Title II, the public entity must honor the individual's requested format--only exception is if they can show doing so would be undue burden or fundamental alteration. That's different from Titles I and III of the ADA.

Does the "Preexisting conventional electronic documents" exception apply to past documents provided on a public website as reference? Or is it only applicable to documents that are available in a non-web repository that people have to request?

Jessie Weber: Content and documents provided just for reference, that haven't been updated since effective date, and are in designated "archived content" section of website are covered under archived web content exception. The preexisting conventional electronic documents cover electronic docs in certain formats that are no longer in use, but appear on the website or mobile app. Hope that helps!

ADA Title 2 relies on the public entity to self-enforce, correct? Are there auditor or external assessor requirements? Are Trusted Testers required to be implemented or rather an option for an organization tackling accessibility?

Jessie Weber: Title II has a private right of action, which means any individual can sue to enforce it (so long as they're directly impacted by the lack of accessibility). The DOJ and Dep't of Ed also enforce Title II.

Katherine Eng: Trusted Tester's test process is for Section 508 and WCAG 2.0. ADA requires WCAG 2.1, so there will be a few WCAG requirements that Trusted Tester does not test.

My question is about alternate version. If a PDF is not accessible, but we have an accessible webpage with the same information, would it be allowed?

Jessie Weber: The Title 2 regs are pretty suspicious of conforming alternate versions of inaccessible content--recognizing that separate is typically not equal. But it's allowed where the separate version is necessary because of technical or legal limitations. The DOJ has explained that an example of a “technical limitation” would be where “technology is not yet capable of being made accessible” and a “legal limitation” may exist where web content “cannot be changed due to legal reason.” The parameters of these limitations may end up being developed further in the courts. Unless this applies, if none of the 5 exceptions apply, then the PDF would need to be accessible too.

Katherine Eng: For Section 508, an accessible web page can be considered a conforming alternate version as long as it meets the criteria, such as how a user would access the accessible version.

Hi Jessie and thank you for the good and detailed explanation. On ADA Title 2 Exception #4, the Individualized documents that are password-protected, does it violate the Equal Employment Opportunity law, that is a disable employee with a password?

Jessie Weber: Title I applies to employment by public entities, so those rules would govern. They are quite different--requiring reasonable accommodations and an interactive process.

Any feedback on what is considered timely?

Jessie Weber: What is "timely" under Title II is a flexible, fact-specific concept--the focus is always on providing equal opportunity though. In the context of needing course materials before a class discussion of them, "timely" would generally mean receiving the materials before or at the same time as students without disabilities. That may differ depending on the context and how urgently the materials are needed.

For state gov in the US, if we have 3rd parties providing websites for services--think of Medicaid and other health coverage-- should we be asking for a VPAT and ACR at least each year to make sure that they are properly testing and resolving access issues?

Jessie Weber: From a legal perspective, the state gov would still be responsible for the website complying with Title II (even if created/maintained by 3rd party), so I would take a number of steps to ensure that the 3rd parties are maintaining accessible websites--required testing, reports, contract indemnification requirements, etc.

There was a response to my question regarding making multi-function printer accessible but I lost connectivity and now I don't see the response, please resend

Kristen Smith-O'Connor: From Laura Miller: Chapter 4 of Section 508 addresses hardware requirements and a multi-function printer would fall in that category. Additionally, functional performance criteria are a great start for all of the standards, domestic and international. You mention audible output, but also consider tactile buttons, braille instructions, and the User interface. Also stayed tuned for a Hardware ICT Testing Baseline that is in development which will provide some guidelines for Section 508.

Thoughts on creating Accessibility Conformance Reports for gov't websites. Like using a VPAT (template) to assess a site's conformance.  We were recently asked for a VPAT for a high level HTML website and are curious if others are already doing this?

Laura Miller: Jennifer, we typically recommend ACRs for tools and functionality that would be leveraged both by your users and by others. Like Login.gov (they have an ACR) or our ACR Editor tool or Training modules.  Websites that change frequently would be difficult to maintain regularly, but if forms or functionality is required by the public, testing and an ACR would be a best practice.

Gracias,

Agnes Figueroa
IT Security Manager
Information Security Office<https://bellevuec.sharepoint.com/sites/its/security/>
Information Technology Services
Phone: 425-564-2505 | Office: B233-I
Work hours: 6:30 am - 3:00 pm
Report an IT security or Privacy Incident<https://bellevuecollege.teamdynamix.com/TDClient/2044/Portal/Requests/ServiceDet?ID=54980>

[Bellevue College Logo]<http://bellevuecollege.edu/>

¡Sí, hablo Español!

Any pronouns will be fine.

Accessibility is not a checkbox. Accessibility is a mindset that can lead to a very powerful sense of inclusion.

~ Maayan Ziv founder and CEO AccessNow

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/cato_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20250521/a32ba963/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-Bellevue C.png
Type: image/png
Size: 115198 bytes
Desc: Outlook-Bellevue C.png
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/cato_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20250521/a32ba963/attachment-0001.png>