[Colorado-Talk] Pushing Back on Accessibility

Tue Sep 10 19:19:43 UTC 2024

Hellow Friends,I thought this might be useful to review and use when appropriate.
Accessibility Basics

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “3.6 million Americans with travel-limiting disabilities do not leave their homes because they are disabled or housebound.” While public transit vehicles must be accessible, many individuals are prevented from using transportation due to other accessibility barriers. We define accessible transportation as transportation that everyone can access and use.

When you think of barriers in transportation, you might immediately think of examples like the lack of a lift-equipped vehicle or hard-to-read signage. However, obstacles like a lack of paratransit after 5 p.m. or on weekends, high cost of travel, or inaccessible information about transit systems can also prevent communities or individuals from using transportation services. First-mile/last-mile barriers — which refer to barriers in a trip's first mile and last mile, such as poorly maintained/designed sidewalks, distance from a bus stop, safety concerns like lighting, lack of benches at bus stops — also contribute to inaccessible transportation.

Definitions

According to the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, “accessible means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use.”

“Assistive technology (AT) is any item, device, or piece of equipment used to maintain or improve the functionality of people with disabilities, allowing them to be more independent in education, employment, recreation, and daily living activities” (AT3 Center). Examples of transportation AT include lift-equipped vans, tie-down systems for wheelchairs, or hand controls for driving without pedals.

The DEI Glossary from the University of Washington defines inclusion as “the act of creating an environment in which any individual or group will be welcomed, respected, supported and valued as a fully participating member.” Transit Planning 4 All defines inclusion in transportation planning as “the active and meaningful involvement of people with disabilities and older adults in transit planning and operations.”

“Universal design is the design and composition of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or disability.” (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design)

Resources

Helping Users Navigate Your Agency’s Website
Learn how to optimize web navigation on your transit website.

7 Principles for Universal Design
These seven principles, initially developed in 1997, can be used as a starting point in evaluating existing designs and developing new ones. Find more Universal Design resources at the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design from the National Disability Authority (Ireland).

Aging and Disability Transportation Overview
Learn about the unique issues faced by older adults and people with disabilities and available transportation options from the National Aging and Disability Transportation Center.

Types of Assistive Technology
Explore different types of AT on the AT3 Center’s website.

More than One in Five Adults with Limited Public Transit Access Forgo Health Care Because of Transportation Barriers
“Adults with a disability (17%) were more than three times as likely to report skipping care due to transportation concerns.” Read more at the link above.

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
More than One in Five Adults Forgo Healthcare Because of Transportation ...

Reliable access to transportation, whether it be a vehicle or neighborhood public transit, is a social driver of...
 |

 |

 |

Claudia FolskaCofounderAll Access Transit Solutions
303.525.2411cfolska at aats.today 

    On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 12:46:13 PM MDT, kevan nfbco.org via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:  

Great to have salespeople like Dan and Jessica. Colorado Springs is not guilty. El Paso County is guilty. I intend to raise hell. I also think we should consider some kind of information demonstration of some kind at the Douglass County Commission. Let's call her out! Seriously! As Jessica says, “Why do we always have to settle for the scraps”. This county commissioner could be blind tomorrow. That’s one thing people don’t think about much. With regard to disabilities, “this too could happen to you”.

At your service, 

Kevan Worley

303-929-2369

Manager Project Literacy, National Federation of the Blind of Colorado

The National Federation of the Blind is a community of members and friends who believe in the hopes and dreams of the nation’s blind. Every day we work together to help blind people live the lives they want.

Colorado Center for the Blind believes when you believe in yourself and experience a thriving community of positive blind people, nothing can hold you back from pursuing your dreams.

From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org>On Behalf Of Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:10 PM
To: 'NFB of Colorado Discussion List' <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: tkeenan79 at gmail.com
Subject: [Colorado-Talk] Pushing Back on Accessibility

Here’s an article that describes how some Colorado agencies are pulling documents offline to avoid potential punishment under the new accessibility law. Great job by Dan and Jessica to push back against this reactionary approach and clarify why this law is needed.

Onward!

-Tim

Unintended consequences: New law on accessibility leads to removal of public records from websites

Marissa Ventrelli marissa.ventrelli at coloradopolitics.com

Sep 7, 2024Updated 9 hrs ago

A 2021 law intended to improve accessibility to government documents for individuals with hearing and vision impairments has had unintended consequences — it prompted some agencies to completely remove public records from websites altogether in order to avoid non-compliance with the legislation.

House Bill 21-1110

 required all state and local agencies to implement accessibility plans for their IT systems by July 1 of this year or face potential discrimination lawsuits and fines of up to $3,500. Following worries from agencies about their ability to meet the deadline, a 2024 bill

 extended the cutoff to July 1, 2025.

Under the law, to make documents accessible to individuals with vision and hearing impairments, agencies must remove the original files and replace them with accessible versions. These new versions must adhere to the most recent edition of web content accessibility guidelines

. Common features of accessible web content include larger text, image descriptions, and compatibility with screen readers.

'Unintended consequences'

While the process of converting documents to accessible formats might seem straightforward, some organizations alleged that it is both time-consuming and costly.

The law allocated $300,000 to the Governor's Office of Information Technology to assist agencies with the conversions, but the agencies themselves received no funding.

Many consider it an unfunded mandate, including Lora Thomas, a Douglas County commissioner and the secretary of Colorado Counties, Inc. 

Through her work with the association, Thomas has learned that several counties are choosing to remove documents, such as budgets and meeting minutes, from their websites entirely, fearing they won't be able to meet the bill's requirements by the deadline.

Residents looking to access a removed document must file a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request, which can cost up to over $40 per research hour. 

Thomas asserted that agencies are not removing key documents from their website because they want to evade the law — they're doing so because they cannot afford to comply with the new requirements.

The consequences for non-compliance are potentially dire.

"We see this with a lot of legislation that gets passed," Thomas said. "We learn about the unintended consequences, and it's something that we need to figure out. It would be wonderful if some entrepreneur would develop a software that would take care of this very efficiently for us, but right now that hasn't happened."

She added: "I have heard these conversations when all commissioners from around the state are together about their frustration about following the law and not having the resources from the state who put this mandate on us to meet these requirements."

What bout government transparency?

Entirely removing important documents and, as a result, imposing potential financial barriers to access records is an ironic and disheartening twist for a law intended to enhance accessibility to government information for Coloradans, according to Jeff Roberts of the Freedom of Information Coalition.

"What you would hope is that this law would be an opportunity for all government entities to think about how they could be as accessible for everybody and make government not just more accessible for people with disabilities, but also for everyone else," he said. "Governments should be making as many records available online for people to access whenever they want or need them so they don't have to make records requests and go through that system, where the response could be delayed or they could have to pay fees."

To make matters worse, Roberts added, the fees for CORA requests increased in July, rising from a maximum rate of $33.58 to $41.37 per hour, a 23.2% hike.

He argued that agencies should have already made their most frequently requested documents accessible, and failing to do so has put them in a difficult position that won't be easy to rectify.

"As much as governments can do that, they should be, and they should be doing it with frequently requested types of documents —  like budgets — and anything they see that the public is really interested in," he said. 

Advocates: Agencies can but choose not to 

Jessica Beecham, Colorado State President for National Federation of the Blind, said the law only applies to newly-created documents, not every document on an agency's website. 

She and her colleague, NFB Ambassador Committee Chairperson Dan Burke, expressed frustration that agencies seem to be choosing to remove documents from their website rather than comply with the law.

"Think about access to documents as a wheelchair ramp," Beecham said. "We understand why people need to be able to get into the building. We never say to folks in wheelchairs, 'Why do you need a ramp to get in?' So why would we ever say to people with print disabilities, 'Why do you need an accessible document in order to access it?'"

Burke and Beecham emphasized that they weren't trying to engage in "drive-by lawsuits or be the accessibility police" with this law. Instead, they said, they wanted to bring the state in line with accessibility guidelines that have existed for years.  

Beecham said she believes all state and local agencies have the capability and resources to convert their documents into accessible formats — but they are choosing not to do so.

"I think that they are trying to show that they shouldn't have to put the effort into this to begin with," she said. "It's not across the board because some agencies have gotten on it and done really well with this, but there are some that haven't, and they just kind of keep going back to doing the same thing. This is not as monumental of a task as they're making it out to be."

Burke argued that agencies would save money in the long run by complying with the state's accessibility requirements now rather than having to "retrofit" documents later. He used the analogy of a building, noting that it's much cheaper to install an elevator during construction than to add one after the building is already completed.

Ultimately, Beecham said, the law is about respect and equality, something the disability community has been working toward for decades. 

When agencies don't comply, "it sends a message that we're not first class citizens and that we're a burden," she said. "It feels humiliating sometimes to have to beg for the scraps" 

OIT clears the record

While Beecham and Burke said the law only applied to newly-created documents, the Governor's Office of IT said that is incorrect. 

According to Kelly Tabor, Communications Manager for OIT"s Technology Accessibility Program, "all documents, not just new ones, will need to meet the accessibility requirements."

"That said, although the goal for any government entity is to make all of its technology touchpoints meet the accessibility criteria, we understand that it isn't feasible to accomplish instantly," Tabor said. "We encourage all government organizations to focus on making some higher priority technology accessible first right now, and make changes over time."

She added: "They may consider assessing what actions can we take to start making things accessible from the beginning. Some examples could include creating accessible templates for repeatable things like presentations and newsletters, training staff on accessibility basics, like drafting accessible emails and accessible documents, and adding a requirement in their contracts for vendors to produce accessible deliverables." 

Tabor added: "Our team finds that the more we all practice accessibility, the easier and more habitual it becomes, until we just start making all of our presentations and handouts accessible out of habit."
 _______________________________________________
Colorado-Talk mailing list
Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/cfolska%40yahoo.com
List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20240910/f742f06c/attachment.htm>