Regulation Room is an open government pilot project aimed at increasing the breadth and quality of public participation in the rulemaking process. It is a collaboration between the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI), which owns, designs, and operates the site, and the Department of Transportation, which has selected Regulation Room as its flagship initiative under the Open Government Directive.

From September 19, 2011- January 9, 2012, people could use Regulation Room to learn about and discuss a new supplemental proposed rule, “Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports.” This time frame coincided with the official comment period for the rule, which closed January 9, 2012.

On January 3, 2012, the Regulation Room team posted Draft Summaries of the discussion. All users who registered and/or commented on the rule during the time it was open, were invited by email to review the drafts and suggest additions or changes until January 9, 2012. In that time, 476 unique visitors visited the site and 1 commenter posted 2 suggestions. The team reviewed all suggestions and then prepared the Final Summaries that appear below.

On January 9, these Summaries were submitted, via Regulations.gov, to DOT as a formal public comment in the rulemaking. (For more on the legal significance of this, see the FAQs.) Registered users received an email notifying them that the Final Summary had been posted on the site and submitted to DOT.

You may submit an individual comment directly to DOT on the proposed rule by visiting Regulations.gov by midnight on Monday, January 9, 2012. DOT’s general policy is to consider late-submitted comments to the extent possible, but you should file your comment as close to January 9 as possible.

Materials from the Discussion Phase, including the Draft and Final Summaries, will remain available on Regulation Room for public review. A file of all content submitted by users will be made available to DOT at its option. (This file will not include any personally identifiable information you did not choose to make publicly viewable on the site. See Privacy & Conditions.) [dig]

§2. Who participated?

During the 112 days the rule was open on Regulation Room, a total of 7,949 unique visitors came to the site. There were 12,631 total visits, with people spending an average of 2.18 minutes on the site. Of the issue posts, the average time on the page was longest for Websites: Accessibility standards (3.35 minutes) and shortest for Websites: Implementation when? (2.10 minutes). The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was viewed 446 times with an average time on page of 2:34 minutes and the Regulatory Impact Analysis was viewed 175 times with an average time on page of 4:59 minutes.

Anyone could read material on the site, but registration was required to participate in the discussion, 53 people registered during the time the rule was open.

Based on answers to a survey at registration, 64% of those who registered said that they had never previously submitted a comment in a federal rulemaking. A second survey question asked people to describe their interest in the rule. More than one category could be selected, so the numbers add up to more than 53.

Traveler: 18 people chose only this interest category; 20 others chose this interest category in addition to one of the categories below. In general, this summary describes a commenter as a “traveler” if he/she selected only this category.

Relative/friend of traveler with a disability: 13

Site designer or programmer/usability expert: 6

Travel agency owner or staff: 1

Airport staff: 1

Air carrier staff: 1

Other: 15 people chose this interest category; 13 further described their interests, which included:

• 2 accessibility consultants
• 2 disability advocate
• 1 researcher in disabilities and universal design
• 1 law student
• 1 person giving their opinion
• 1 person who is disabled and wishes to assist others in being independent while traveling
• 1 person interested in the protection of the traveling public
• 1 member of the NFB who is a deaf-blind person
• 1 logical thinking US citizen
• 1 taxpayer
• 1 interested academic

Because of the nature of the rule, we also asked respondents if they had a disability and if they used assistive/adaptive technology. 29 people said they had a disability, giving the following additional details:

• 12 vision
• 5 mobility
• 4 hearing
• 1 other (unspecified)
• 7 combination

Of these 29, 17 said that they had never participated in a federal rulemaking before, or weren’t sure if they had. Additionally, 18 of the 29 submitted a comment.

NOTE: Regulation Room does not attempt to check whether people correctly identify their interests. For this reason, whenever the summary states a commenter’s interest, the description is based solely on information given by the commenter.

Of the 53 people who registered while the discussion was open, 31 posted 103 comments. Site moderators posted a total of 60 responses. Comments by users were distributed as follows (these totals do not include moderator posts):

• Websites: Accessibility standards: 26 comments by 14 people
• Kiosks: Accessibility standards: 48 comments by 16 people
• Websites: Benefits & costs of accessibility: 7 comments by 6 people
• Kiosks: Benefits & costs of accessibility: 7 comments by 5 people
• Websites: Which? What content?: 4 comments by 2 people
• Websites: Implementation when?: 2 comments by 2 people
• Kiosks: Which? When?: 9 comments by 4 people

Four other people who did not comment elsewhere on the site endorsed comments. These included travelers and a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability who also has mobility and vision impairments.

Additionally, one new user (disability rights advocate) posted 2 comments on the Draft Summaries. There were no comments on the draft summaries from people who had participated in the discussion.

[dig]

§3. Final Summaries of Discussion

• Websites: Accessibility standards
• Kiosks: Accessibility standards
• Websites: Benefits & costs of accessibility
• Kiosks: Benefits & costs of accessibility
• Websites: Which? What content?
• Websites: Implementation when?
• Kiosks: Which? When?

Thank you for being part of the Regulation Room experiment in making important federal rulemakings more accessible to the public!

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 26 comments from 14 users; moderators responded 15 times.

Eleven users described themselves as travelers. Of those eleven, six said they were relatives/friends of a traveler with a disability, one is a travel agency owner or staff, and one is a site designer or programmer/usability expert. One user described her/himself as an accessibility consultant, one as a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability, one as a site designer or programmer and usability expert, and one as being disabled and wishing to assist others in being independent while traveling.

Eleven of the users self identified as having a disability – four with mobility, five with visibility, and two with hearing. Ten said they used assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chairs, canes, service animal, screen readers, text-to-speech software, braille display, iPhone voiceover, and a hearing aid.

Several comments made on this post discussed benefits and costs of the proposed regulations. Those comments are summarized at Websites: Benefits and Costs draft summary.

[dig]

§2. General overview

Almost all commenters on this post supported DOT setting website accessibility standards. One of the dissenting commenters (relative/friend of a traveler with a disability) characterized the proposed regulation as “government intrusion” and expressed concern over the effects of the regulations on a weak economy. Another argued that accessibility could be provided as effectively and more cheaply by telephone and TTY. (See also comments included in the Websites: Benefits and Costs final summary.) The commenter (disability rights advocate) who commented for the first time on the draft summary pointed out: “TTS[Y?] is NOT equally effecitve for blind persons with High Functioning Autism, as it does not provide editing capabilities, and involves talking to a live person, which can be intimidating.” Commenters supporting the regulation argued for adopting both technical and performance standards, and suggested innovative ways to ensure compliance. [dig]

§3. WCAG 2.0 AA technical standards; possible alternatives; conforming alternate versions; mobile

Three commenters specifically endorse using the WCAG 2.0 AA standards. One (traveler with a visual disability) argues that such guidelines are “current and appropriate” given the “global community” that uses air travel websites.

However, another commenter (accessibility consultant) argues that “WCAG 2.0 AA is too ‘complicated’” and urges DOT to require instead “WCAG [2.0] A plus Contrast (3.2.2) and especially Focus indication (2.4.7) for keyboard users.” And another commenter (travel agency owner or staff) is concerned that the proposed standards are implemented by “very few commercial websites.” The commenter (accessibility consultant) responded by providing an article on the current state of accessibility among the top online retail sites, which can be found at http://jimthatcher.com/eretailers.htm.

Another commenter (traveler who has both mobility and visual impairments) pointed out that some “people who are deaf or deaf/blind have English as a second language. A lot of these individuals may have American Sign Language as their primary language. Alternate formats of the way information is provided can at times help these individuals deal with making decisions and reservations in an English speaking world.”

Finally, one commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) argues that DOT’s legal standard must keep pace with changes to web design trends: “Regardless of which standard is used, the standard should be linked to the current published version of the technical standards. Web design trends change faster than the federal regulatory process. To avoid this problem, the regulation should have an “automatic update” provision so that the legally enforceable technical standard changes to match the most current version of WCAG or Section 508 when updates to those standards are published by W3 or the Access Board. Perhaps a grace period of six months from publication would be sufficient to allow for compliance. If it is absolutely necessary to go through the notice and comment process in order to update the legally enforceable technical standards, then DOT should automatically initiate a parallel regulatory update that adopts the new version of the standard on the day they are published by either w3 or the Access Board.”

On conforming alternate versions, one commenter (person with both mobility and visual impairments), pointed out that pictures and pop-ups make websites more difficult to navigate for screen reading programs. S/he suggests that “websites should have a text-only version in addition to making the regular site accessible.” A second commenter (person with a visual disability) seems to be advocating this as well when s/he writes: “I think that regardless of the accessibility of a web site, there needs to be tools in place to allow a disabled user to access the information, either by clicking a link that takes him or her to a web site that will be accessible to either a screen reader, voice activation, or other modes of accessibility.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) disagreed with allowing any type of alternate version of websites. S/he wrote: “the final regulations should explicitly prohibit use of conforming alternate versions of the primary website. History has proven that separate but equal is never an effective approach to public access. As a regular user of assistive technology and several carrier websites, I have experienced situations where there were material gaps in the information and functionality on the text-only site compared with that on the carrier’s primary site.” This commenter went on to tell the story of what his/her experience using one airline’s current text-only alternate site: “I visited a carriers text-only site and noticed that the list of airports to choose from in a drop-down menu listed an airport that the carrier no longer serviced. The primary page was updated to display only the currently serviced airports but the users of the text-only page were unaware of the omitted airport. I regularly observe similar problems where the text-only pages lag behind updates made to the primary website. I now always attempt to use the primary version of a website first because the text-only version is not often updated in a timely manner or has broken links that go unfixed for long periods of time. I suspect that the problems with the text-only sites fall below the radar because of the small population of disabled users multiplied by the unwillingness of disabled persons to spend time voicing a complaint once they have already spent a large amount of time working with an inaccessible website interface. (In my experience, I once opted to patronize a different carrier instead of wasting further time filing a complaint against the offending carrier’s text-only website). Even considering the already relatively small size of the disability community, many members of that community likely use the primary site which detracts from the number of users who are testing and providing feedback on the text-only site. Further, the carrier’s investment of resources in establishing a under-used and under-maintained text-only version detracts from making the primary website fully accessible and fully integrated.” S/he also pointed out that most carriers already make a “good percentage of their primary pages accessible. It wouldn’t take much more work for carriers to ensure that the remaining portions that are not accessible come into compliance with the technical standards.”

On mobile sites, a commenter (traveler with a mobility disability) suggests: “DOT should consider requiring airline carriers to interface all messaging information (apps, instant messaging, and a like) with personal mobility devices. In this regard persons with hard of hearing, blindness and other ailments can be kept informed equally as well as those without disabilities.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) argues that the definition of “website” in the rule should cover “all web-based forms of electronic information technology and alternative versions of the information delivered on a website,” specifically mobile versions of sites and mobile apps. S/he points out that many airlines are using mobile apps on the iPhone, Google Android, or other mobile operating systems as alternatives or supplements to traditional websites. Therefore, people with disabilities should have access to these new forms of electronic information as well. This commenter also said that s/he accesses the mobile apps for his/her favorite venders as often as the traditional websites. [dig]

§4. Performance as well as technical standards

Three commenters specifically addressed this issue and advocated adopting performance as well as technical standards.

One (usability expert) pointed out that “design standards set minimum requirements, but only actual usability standards can make sure the sites actually work.” S/he noted that the National Institute of Standards and Technology is working on setting performance standards for voting machines and suggested that this would be a possible path for DOT to follow. “Another way to set a performance standard is through actual performance. Not expert review, but a real usability test. The passing metrics could take into account variations in expertise of users, setting the bar at a reasonable place.” Overall, “[t]he challenge is creating an appropriate test that is neither too difficult or expensive.” S/he strongly urged that “DOT needs to work not only with the disability community, but also with usability experts.”

A second commenter (traveler with a visual disability) also supported adopting performance standards as well as technical standards, arguing that “[b]eing able to complete transactions with not much more time required is ultimately what matters.” To DOT’s question “To what types and versions of assistive technologies should it apply?” this commenter responded: “The types and versions of assistive technologies should be those used commonly by blind consumers (in the case of this section); these are readily identifiable as those exhibiting at conventions of these blind consumers.” Another (traveler with both mobility and visual impairments) argued that sites “should be made compatible to Dragon Dictate and other programs that assist individuals with visual impairments and blindness in reading text.” [dig]

§5. Verifying compliance

One commenter (traveler with a hearing impairment and as a friend or relative of a traveler with a disability) warned: “My experience with the self-monitoring is that corners are cut, or ignored all together. You need to have compliance checked by an outside source or it will simply fall by the wayside.” When asked by the moderator for specific ideas, s/he responded: “Provide a customer survey either prominently on the website or via pop-up to ask users their opinion, I would ask their permission to send them a survey (dependent on disability), I would randomly check the site myself to ensure compliance. … I might also work with colleges/universities to ask students with and without disabilities to report on the site (when worked out with professors they might get some sort of school credit).”

Another (usability expert) agreed that an onsite “feedback mechanism would be ideal. It would be better to have a way for consumers to report problems so they are fixed than for everything to turn into a lawsuit.”

A third (traveler with a mobility disability) suggested: “Carriers should be required to incorporate disability teams (from the community and their staff) to by annually [biannually?] assess the entire travel ribbon for accessibility barriers. These reports should be sent to DOT to help deconstruct the multiple enforcement agency responsibilities.” This commenter also suggested that “DOT should rely on the [U.S.] access board airport technical guideline sheet.” [dig]

§6. New problem

One commenter (traveler with a mobility impairment) identified a significant problem for travelers with disabilities: “Many airline websites will not allow online check, nor through their kiosks, if your reservation is ‘flagged’ as having special needs (such as traveling with your own wheelchair or a service animal), therefore requiring check-in at the counter, even if all they do is issue a boarding pass. While not specific to the format and accessibility for those with communication impairments, it does have an impact on all travelers with a disability who are able to use online check-in or at a kiosk, who do not need additional assistance getting to the gate.”

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 48 comments from 16 users; moderators responded 23 times.

Twelve users described themselves as travelers. Of those twelve, one described her/himself as also being a disability advocate, three as relatives/friends of a traveler with disability, and one as a travel agency owner or staff. One user described her/himself as a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability, two as a site designers or programmers and usability experts (one of these two specified that were also a researcher in disabilities and universal design), and one as a being interested in the protection of the traveling public.

Nine of the users self identified as having a disability – four with mobility, four with visibility, and one with hearing. All nine said they used assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chair, cane, walker, captioning, videophone, screen magnifier, screen reader, braille printer, book reader, text-to-speech software, and large print.

Four other people (including a friend/relative of a person with a disability who also has mobility and vision disabilities, a traveler, and a law student) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed comments.

[dig]

§2. Necessity/desirability of kiosk accessibility standards

One commenter expressed uncertainty about whether “DOT and DOJ are the best people to propose such a standard.” A person who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment. Another commenter (travel agent who is blind) replied. S/he spoke from personal experience about the necessity of regulations for airport kiosks and websites due to a growing number of individuals who are blind, whether by birth, disease, accidents, or from being veterans. S/he is a member of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), which has had accessibility cases against airports dismissed because the “ADA doesn’t have any jurisdiction at the airports or the websites in this matter.” A person (traveler) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.

One commenter (travel agency owner or staff) spoke out against “revamping all the kiosks,” suggesting instead a “priority lane” where travelers with disabilities could get “personal assisted service.” (A similar comment from this commenter appears in the Kiosks: Costs & Benefits final summary.) A person (law student) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment. The commenter (travel agent who is blind) responded that travelers with disabilities want “independence and not special treatment.” Another commenter (traveler and someone with a friend or relative who has a disability) agreed that “[s]egregating people with disabilities into a separate line is … stigmatizing,” and explained that people with disabilities are “normal people” who want “equal treatment” not “special treatment.”

One commenter (traveler) suggested that this was an example of “government trying to implement an inefficient and costly requirement.” S/he further predicted that the airlines will not absorb the cost of complying with this regulation and would pass it on to “everyone who travels.” Finally, this commenter found it “very difficult to believe” that there wasn’t an alternative with a “more reasonable” cost. The commenter (travel agent who is blind) disagreed, stating “if someone cannot use something that everyone else can, that is downright discrimination.” Another reiterated the importance of independence: “disabled people would benefit greatly from air travel accessibility kiosks in that in the growing age of computers, people would not be needed for their special assistance.” (This comment was made on the Website: Benefits and Costs post.)

Another commenter (traveler) suggested that there should not be “government regulations” on kiosk accessibility, because airline industry competition would “create similar accessibility standards” if they were cost efficient. (See the Kiosks: Costs and benefits final summary for a similar comment from another commenter.) This commenter also suggested that “there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis” to “determine if the benefit is really worth the cost;” s/he did not respond to the moderator’s question about whether s/he considered the cost analysis done by DOT adequate. [dig]

§3. Other standards

Four commenters suggested that DOT should consider other standards and technologies to create guidelines for airport kiosks.

One (site designer or programmer/usability expert) suggested DOT consider incorporating parts of the Election Assistance Commission’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) (particularly chapter 3) because they “specifically address[] kiosk-type systems” without requiring use of “personal assistive technology.” S/he included a link to the VVSG and explained that these standards “draw[] on 508 and WCAG along with AADAG.” A second commenter (traveler with visual and mobility disabilities) concurred.

Another (travel agent who is blind) pointed out that people who are blind have been using ATMs “for a very long time” and that many accessibility features of ATMs have already been established. Discussing DOT’s questions regarding volume controls, this commenter pointed to ATMs and said, “[t]his is basically standard stuff.”

On the other hand, see the next section for the reservations of one commenter (researcher in disabilities and universal design) about whether ATM standards are completely appropriate for kiosks.

Another commenter (person with a mobility impairment who uses a wheelchair) was optimistic that “a review of currently available technology and the experience of people with disabilities in its use, should be helpful in developing kiosks that can be adequately used by most people with most disabilities. I don’t see why most kiosks can’t be accessible by the time the rules are effective.” [dig]

§4. Specific aspects of proposed standards

Several commenters had reactions and suggestions to specific elements of the proposed kiosk standard. One commenter in particular (researcher in disabilities and universal design) made multiple detailed comments. These are summarized in the sections that follow.

At the same time, a recurring theme of commenters who self-identified as having disabilities was that DOT should consult with, and test proposed standards on, individuals with disabilities. (One noted that such testing is needed to accurately assess costs and benefits.) [dig]

§5. Auditory output; privacy

Commenters are concerned about sensitive information being handled by airport kiosks and some had suggestions for how to maximize traveler privacy.

The commenter (travel agent who is blind) explained that travelers with disabilities resolve this issue by carrying earphones and plugging them into kiosks that have “standard sockets.” S/he also suggested that the community of people with disabilities “know[s] what is out there that we can use, and how to do it to protect privacy” — the “only thing these businesses have to do is ask.”

A commenter (researcher in disabilities and universal design) addressed this issue in depth: “Because financial transactions are being conducted on such kiosks, a private listening option must be provided through an industry-standard headset connector. A headset/headphone jack is better than a handset, because people may not have two hands free to simultaneously hold the handset and operate the device (for example, because they are holding luggage or have a physical limitation). In addition, a headset jack is required to allow users to connect their own neckloops or other hearing technologies to the device besides just headphones. Because different headphones and other hearing technologies will result in different volumes when plugged in, a volume control must be also be provided. Headphone jacks are typically the most inexpensive option available for providing sound. Computers inside a kiosk typically have audio output capability, so only a wire and jack mounted on the housing needs to be installed. Installing a speaker for use in public locations typically requires installation of speakers and an audio amplifier.”

S/he added: “It is possible to wirelessly pair a Bluetooth headset or headphones to a device to provide audio to the user. The biggest problem with Bluetooth audio is that a user must pair the device. Typically there are pairing settings in a visual menu on a Bluetooth enabled device, but a person who is blind cannot see to make the pairing and they cannot yet hear because the Bluetooth headset is not yet paired! Also, Bluetooth is likely of limited utility because not everyone who might use such wireless headsets at a kiosk owns a wireless headset or has them available when they need them. Today, a headphone jack is a better choice to use because more people carry around personal headphones for private listening. Airlines buy inexpensive headphones in bulk and could potentially make them available to customers who need them for the kiosk. Thus, Bluetooth could be provided but it would have to be in addition to a headphone jack, not instead of one.”

One commenter (traveler who has mobility and visual disabilities) specifically asked for design specifications that protect privacy for travelers with visual disabilities to use credit cards: “I have had to use strangers to help me put in credit cards etc. when using a kiosk and this is very concerning to me. I am hopeful that when designing a new kiosk system there would be some privacy guidelines and/or shell so that a person can put in there ID and Credit Card for charges without having to be totally in the open.” See the next section for this commenter’s discussion of the needed tactile signaling. [dig]

§6. Volume control

Two commenters addressed the importance of volume control specifications.

The travel agent who is blind wrote that ATMs and other machines have up/down controls for volume, and that “[t]his is basically standard stuff.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design addressed the issue in detail: “It is important that a system have volume control for all forms of audio output. This includes both the standard output and any assistive audio output. People plugging in headphones or hearing technologies into headphone jacks need to have control over the audio because the volumes vary widely for different headphones. What might be a fine volume for one person with one set of headphones might be painfully loud to another person with a different set of headphones. With speakers, the user may need to adjust the volume to account for ambient noise or their own ability to hear.”

S/he warned, however: “Note that specifying an absolute volume level for headphones cannot be done because of differences between headphones. The audio signal should be provided at a standard output level for the jack with volume control. People who need significant amplification beyond what is usually provided at the audio jack of a computer or kiosk may carry a personal audio amplifier or amplified headphones. It is important that the method of changing the volume does not require the person to initially hear the audio. For example, a person who is blind and has difficulty hearing at the default level would not be able to adjust the volume if the only means for doing so were to navigate through audio menus on the system. Finally, since some users who are hard of hearing may set the volume very high, it is important that the volume be reset after each user.” [dig]

§7. Tactile symbols

Commenters strongly supported a requirement for “tactile symbols” on kiosks.

The commenter site designer or programmer/usability expert said, “I applaud the inclusion of a standard set of symbols for common functions. Unlike a personal computer, we use many different airlines. It will help if they all have the same tactile symbols.”

The commenter researcher in disabilities and universal design said, “Tactile controls that meet the specifications in Section 508 [36 CFR 1194.23(k) & .25(c)] are good to include. Having tactilely discernible controls is good for people who must explore the device and find controls by touch. It is necessary to be able to find the controls without activating them or surrounding controls by simply touching them. Similarly, providing the status of toggle/locking controls audibly or tactilely is good for people who cannot see so that they can determine the status. It is best if they do not need to change the status in order to discover it; however, since it is easily reversed, this is not necessary.”

At the same time, s/he cautioned: “The tactile markings are taken from the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for ATM keys on a numeric keypad. Those exact markings should not be required for *all* other types of keypads, keyboards, or controls because they are not appropriate in all circumstances–for example, the Enter key on a keyboard is discernible by location and size (and shape in many cases) and should not be required to also have a raised circular tactile icon on it. As another example, a different device with right and left keys for navigation might be marked with raised right and left arrows, which would conflict with the Clear/Correct labeling of ATMs. It might be best for the ATM conventions to apply if an ATM-like interface and keypad is used, but it is too limiting for other circumstances and approaches to making kiosks accessible.”

With respect to keypad & keyboard arrangement, this commenter emphasized: “Numeric keys on a physical, hardware input device must be available in a standard arrangement for people who touch type and cannot see. Number keys may be provided in a 3×4 numeric keypad in (1) an ascending (telephone-style) or (2) descending (10-key computer style) arrangement of keys or (3) in a line at the top of a touch-type-able QWERTY keyboard. These three arrangements are common and recognized by users. It would be good to specify a QWERTY arrangement for physical, hardware keyboards on which users can touch type if they are included on kiosk. Many people who are blind can touch type.”

The commenter who expressed concern about privacy of inputting credit cards made a plea for clear tactile signals: “As a person with a visual and mobility disability I find it difficult to use kiosks because it is very hard to put in credit cards etc. because there is no guide (something tactile to put my credit card in before it is loaded). I know that most airlines are going to a kiosk only check in and no human person to assist and it is frustrating because I can’t see or feel where to put in information and/or get information out such as boarding passes etc.” [dig]

§8. Touchscreens

Commenters were concerned about how touchscreen technology would be treated.

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability) warned: “Not all blind people are knowledgeable about operating touch screens. The learning curve is too steep for the airline check-in process.” S/he believes that “a keypad with distinct keys as described on this page for ATMs or mass transit ticket machines is much more readily accessible.”

Another (traveler with a visual disability) addressed DOT’s statement about software being available to help people with visual disabilities use touchscreens. S/he warned that “the recent software is useful for many users but will likely not be useful for all of them.” S/he urged that “DOT should consider testing this software with a wide range of potential users so that a proper cost-benefit analysis can be completed before making a revision to allow this software as an alternative to tactile keys.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design agreed that having a touchscreen only design is problematic and suggested an additional design specification for the new regulation: “Some people cannot easily use a touchscreen or other controls if that touchscreen requires body or skin contact. For example, a person with prosthetic hands would not be able to use a capacitive touchscreen. While it would be preferable if they could use the touchscreen directly, the person should at least be able to use alternative controls to access the device. A new provision might read: ‘Usable without body contact. A least one mode of operation for all functionality shall be provided that does not require body contact or close contact.’” [dig]

§9. Timed response/timeouts

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability) emphasized: “Time-outs are an accessibility barrier. Especially when using a new kiosk, it takes additional time for other users and me to learn how to conduct a transaction. For example, Amtrak has accessible kiosks, which are very useful for printing a ticket already purchased (equivalent to just getting a boarding pass for a flight), but it may take significantly longer to complete more complex transactions (such as changing a reservation) if I hadn’t done it before.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design agreed: “Timeouts that cannot be extended present an accessibility barrier to people who cannot see and who must slowly navigate through items on the screen and then listen to them. Timeouts are also an accessibility barrier to people who have slow movement, those who need to plan movement in advance, those who need time to digest information they had just heard or read, and to people who may lock up or freeze when they realize they are under a perceived short deadline to get something done.”

S/he suggested: “Certainly, unattended kiosks often need to have an inactivity timeout that resets the kiosk if the user leaves in the middle of a transaction. However, a kiosk can have short timeouts and still provide sufficient time for those who need it. It can also have short timeouts and still provide sufficient warning for people who need to request more time but cannot respond quickly. Because some people cannot respond quickly, the length of time available for the user to request more time should be specified in the DOT guidelines. To harmonize with other standards, a value of 20 sec. should be used (starting after the message is provided and read). For example, if the kiosk is required to reset after 45 seconds of inactivity, the person could be warned after 25 seconds with a displayed and audio message and then have 20 more seconds to respond.” [dig]

§10. Flashing lights speech recognition

The researcher in disabilities and universal design suggested a design specification for protecting travelers with epilepsy: “People with photosensitive epilepsy may have seizures if there is fast, bright flashing from lights or a display. As an easy rule of thumb, fewer than three flashes per second is generally considered safe. Flashing faster than that rate may be safe, but depends on the intensity and size of the flashing area. The web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2) has a standard for flashing that is useful.” [dig]

§11. Speech recognition

Commenters had concerns about the possibility that accessible kiosks could require speech recognition.

The researcher in disabilities and universal design explained: “Some people cannot speak clearly enough or at all to use speech recognition systems. For example, a speech recognition system may be unable to understand the speech of a person who became deaf early in life. While speech recognition is not generally included as an option in today’s kiosks it is technology that is being used more widely in consumer electronics now, and a provision should be added to future-proof the legislation.” S/he suggested possible language for the final rule: “Usable without speech. At least one mode of operation for all functionality shall be provided that does not require user speech.”

Agreeing with these concerns, another commenter (traveler with mobility and speech disabilities) explained that s/he has epilepsy, so not only are “flashing lights out of the question,” but s/he “also cannot speak loudly or clearly enough due to an implant to control [his/her] seizures.” Therefore, speech recognition would be useless. A person (friend/relative of a person with a disability who also has mobility and vision disabilities) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment. [dig]

§12. Biometric input

The researcher in disabilities and universal design stated that “A biometrics provision like this is very important to include preemptively so that equivalent provisions do not need to be added later if/when biometrics become more widely used. Retrofitting a kiosk later to include a biometric alternative would certainly be very expensive. This gives vendors and airlines clear guidelines for biometrics and allows them to calculate the cost of inclusion.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability) agreed saying, “Designing a feature to be accessible from the ground up is cheaper and takes less work than retrofitting.” S/he worried that a failure to preemptively establish standards would lead to biometric systems that were not accessible without further regulation, leading to a “burdensome process for people who cannot use the technology.” “People with disabilities are often left behind with technology upgrades and putting regulations into effect now would prevent that.” Additionally, s/he pointed out that “[i]f equipment manufactures know the rules before they design technologies, they can incorporate it.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design also suggested that “[h]aving two biometric identification or control systems is usable by more people than only having one. However, there are some people, such as some veterans, who might have difficulty with both a fingerprint and iris scanner for example. A system with a non-biometric alternative would be usable by more people than a two-biometric system.”

The same commenter who agreed with the need to preemptively establish guidelines for biometrics agreed: “It is essential to have multiple methods of biometric identification. Eye disease can prevent adequate imaging of the iris or retina, or an inability to hold the eye still.” [dig]

§13. Contrast ratio

The researcher in disabilities and universal design urged that the final rule contain a specification for contrast ratio on the kiosk screen borrowed from the same standards being proposed for website accessibility: “A value for the contrast ratio between text and its background should be specified so that designers have guidance about how much contrast is necessary. In order to harmonize with other standards, a value of 3:1 should be used (using the formula in the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2). For enhanced contrast, a ratio of 1:4.5 or even of 1:7 might be specified.” [dig]

§14. Captioning; coordinating speech and visual outputs

The researcher in disabilities and universal design emphasized the broader value of captioning: “The captioning provision is a good provision and should be kept. Besides being helpful to travelers who cannot hear well, captions are helpful for all people when the airport environment is too loud. It also helps those travelers for whom English is a second language because they can both read and listen.”

Another commenter (disability advocate with a hearing disability) suggested, “If closed-captioned, the trigger (whether icon, button, key, etc.) to activate captions should be clearly visible and easy to find. Perhaps a standardized location.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design also strongly supported coordinating visual and speech outputs: “It is very good that the provision requires that the speech output be coordinated with visual output for the [reasons given in the SNPRM]. It should also be noted that many people who are legally blind can see, and the visual display can be helpful for them even if the text is too small to be read. A headphone jack would be better than a handset because a person might not be able to use two hands (e.g., holding luggage or because of disability) to both control the device and hold the handset.”

However, s/he suggests a terminology change to avoid confusion: “The provision references being ‘speech enabled.’ People reading the provision may initially assume the phrase means ‘speech recognition,’ because of increasing consumer familiarity with that technology. Instead, the phrase ‘speech output’ should be used because it is more accurate.” [dig]

§15. Physical standards: Height; clear floor space

The researcher in disabilities and universal design suggested a specific wording change to the proposed standard: “This is a useful provision for people in wheelchairs and people with short stature. The intent of the provision is that people can read the display from a point 40 inches high, not simply view it. Revising the provision slightly, using the word ‘readable’ instead of ’visible’ would make the intent clear.” [dig]

§16. Other problems faced by travelers with disabilities

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses a screen reader) urged DOT to consider the need for “more mobile and hands on devices to provide access to information at the kiosk and information boards. Possible links to i phones to list current information or EM alerts. At present screen readers are not workable on weblinks and the touch screens at data terminals are not usable.”

Two commenters (traveler with mobility and vision disabilities and friend or relative of a traveler with a disability who also has mobility and speech disabilities his/her-self) expressed frustration that airport schedule signage is also not accessible and is not covered by this proposed rule. The traveler with mobility and vision disabilities explained: “I am wondering if there would be a way of auditorily accessing information on the display screens (that are high above and give information about whether or not flights are on time and when they will be flying). At this time it is very frustrating because even if you are at a gate and knew the initial departure of your plane the gate display does not necessarily tell you about changes to that departure time or to the gate. I have run into situations where the gate and departure times have changed and because there was not human interaction it was hard to dealing with the situation. I also have a mobility disability and need airport assistance to get from check in to the gate and had no way to access airport assistance if my gate changed. The people that provide assistance with getting me wheelchair assistance from gate to gate were not available if there were changes. This is probably due to the lack of personnel as well as hardships relating to trying to keep track of people who need assistance and when they need assistance.”

Finally, a commenter (traveler with a mobility disability who uses a wheel chair) wrote about a proposed benefit from kiosk accessibility, which belonged on the Kiosks: Benefits and Costs of Accessibility post. The commenter said, “[T]he more that I can manage my whole travel experience without a lot of interaction with staff, the more seamless my trip will be. At present, I try to do as much as possible online, but once at the airport I still need to negotiate red caps, security personnel, gate check-in personnel, luggage handlers and flight attendants, many of whom still do not have a clear idea of how to interact with people with disabilities. The kiosks will make little impact on this.” (This comment was made on the Website: Benefits and Costs post.)

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 7 comments from 6 users; moderators responded 7 times.

Five users described themselves as travelers and one as giving their opinion. Of the five travelers, one was also a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability and one was an airport staff person.

Three users said they had a disability, one with mobility, one with hearing and vision, and one with mobility and vision. The same three said they use assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chair, cane, braille, large print, optical aids, hand held computer captioned television, and screen enlargement computer software. [dig]

§2. Benefits to individuals with disabilities

Commenters with disabilities felt strongly that access was an issue of justice and fairness. One commenter (traveler with a visual disability) insisted: “[T]o not consider usability when attending to these violations of federal law, we in essence lock doors of access to nearly 20 million individuals if we look at who it is that makes up the print disabled community. As a blind end user, to be precluded from independently accessing critical information to plan and arrange my travel is insulting and a violation of my civil liberties. …[W]e cannot access web sites through our computers as everyone else throughout our nation…” Another said, “[I]t is unfair for a site not to utilize accessible formats to assist deaf, blind, or other disabled persons to gain access to the same information as everyone else.” (These comments were made on the Websites: Accessibility standards post.)

Commenters also identified tangible costs from the current situation. Three (all travelers with disabilities, including hearing, vision, and mobility) complained strongly that airline personnel in fact do not waive the service fees for telephone reservations for people with disabilities, even though this is currently the law. (Two of these comments were made on the Websites: Accessibility standards post.) One added: “And when it comes to finding cheaper fares or less expensive alternative flight dates or times, they are no help at all. These are simple tasks for the non-disabled, but add greatly to both the cost and frustration of many disabled travelers.”

Two of these commenters pointed out that the practice of staffing customer service lines with people in other countries for whom English is not a first language imposes further costs for travelers with disabilities. One explained: “[W]e are left to make calls to reservationists, outside the US and are all too often charged a fee for using the call in desk, having to argue about the laws governing this issue, argue about why we should not and cannot be charged this fee, only to find we have in fact been charged, thereby necessitating a call to an American office rep. to ask them to reverse the charge. The simplicity and ease of making sites accessible would be cost effective and if marketed properly, open a whole market of individuals who use the computer for all aspects of their lives makes it even more difficult to get required accommodations.” (These comments were made on the Websites: Accessibility standards post.) One commenter (travel agent who is blind) remarked that travelers with disabilities want “independence and not special treatment.” In addition, s/he would prefer to be able to book flights for her clients online rather than “wait on the phone for a minimum of 30 minutes.” (This comments was made on the Kiosk: Accessibility standards post.)

Finally, some commenters pointed out that accessibility requirements often benefit people other than the originally identified groups. One (traveler with a visual disability) called to mind the experience with building accessibility, noting that ramps and other access devices now have wider use as, for example, by parents with strollers. Another (traveler with visual and mobility impairments who uses a cane and needs assistance reading information on computers) pointed out that “people with cognitive disabilities have different individualized needs that may make understanding and dealing with websites difficult. These individuals can benefit from the same types of screen reading programs that benefit people who are blind because this alternative format can lend to helping them understand information more thoroughly and use information.” (These comments were made on the Websites: Accessibility standards post.)

Two individuals commented on kiosk accessibility issues; their comments are summarized at Kiosks: Benefits and costs of accessibility final summary. [dig]

§3. Costs and benefits to industry

One commenter (traveler) is concerned that the regulation will be “just another burdensome cost to airlines that will be passed along to travelers. We don’t need it.” S/he also asked what existing regulation would be eliminated to offset the cost of the proposal.

Another (traveler with a hearing disability) agreed, calling the proposal “government overreach and interference.” S/he argued: “The benefit will never exceed costs and will drive many good companies from the web! …The economy is weak enough as is!” Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability) responded: “[This] is and has been a law on the books for nearly 20 years. The only issue is that is has not been effectively extended to include commercial sites. … We are talking about 20 million people [in the “print disabled” community] who would be impacted in the [United S]tates alone. We went through this same discussion decades ago when society introduced ramps and such for equal access to those in wheel chairs and other mobility devices.” S/he argued that “if built into the IT teams mission and focus [accessibility requirements] would add a minimal amount to their bottom lines.” By contrast, s/he argued, lawsuits for not being accessible could cost companies millions, pointing to the recent example of the lawsuit against Target. So the regulations would be better “both from a cost perspective and a marketing perspective.” (These last two comments were made on the Websites: Accessibility standards post.)

Finally, one commenter (airport staff member) said that “it is important that people have as much accessibility to all forms of interaction,” and argued that greater access to travel will allow people to “give money not only to airlines but other sectors of the economy” as well.

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 7 comments from 5 users; moderators responded 5 times.

Four users described themselves as travelers and one as a site designer or programmer and a useability expert. Of the four travelers, one was also a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability and one was a travel agency owner or staff. One traveler said s/he had a vision and a hearing impairment and used assistive/adaptive technology, including: hearing aids, braille, large print, optical aids, a hand held closed circuit television, and screen enlargement computer software. [dig]

§2. Benefits and costs to travelers

Interestingly, there was disagreement among commenters about whether kiosk accessibility would benefit travelers.

One commenter (traveler with visual and hearing disabilities who uses assistive/adaptive technologies) strongly favored the website accessibility proposals but fears unanticipated negative consequences from kiosk accessibility, based on experience in other areas: “I suspect that the plan may ‘backfire,’ making airport access more difficult. Not being able to read airport signage, and therefore requiring ‘meet and assist’ assistance to my designated gate, I find it most convenient to find a ticket agent who will also call for assistance to take me through security and to my gate. If kiosks become more widely used (or possibly required) in the future, it is likely to mean fewer ticket agents, thus longer wait times on line, and more difficulty and delays acquiring the assistance I need. Making kiosks available to those disabled individuals who wish to use them may be a good idea in theory, but, as proven by the growth of ATMs and self-service checkouts, the more automation – the less human assistance!”

One commenter (travel agency owner or staff) similarly questioned whether travelers with disabilities would rather deal with kiosks than have human assistance. S/he claims that even most travelers without disabilities hate kiosks and would rather have personal assistance. S/he proposes instead that airlines be required to have a priority lane with human assistance for disabled travelers, predicting that “this has got to be cheaper and less of a technical challenge.”

See also the Kiosks: Accessibility standards final summary for discussion of, and reaction to, “separate by equal” proposals.

Disagreeing, another commenter (usability/site design expert) said, “I love using the kiosks” and questioned “Why would we assume that an independent person with disabilities wouldn’t, too.” S/he also pointed out that “[y]ou don’t have to use assistive technology to benefit from an accessible kiosk. Many of us have older eyes and value larger type. … Audio can be very helpful for people who don’t read English well (but who can understand it when spoken). Easy-to-press buttons are useful when you are carrying bags.”

Finally, one commenter (traveler) also drew on earlier regulatory experience to oppose the proposal: “Look what requirements on tarmac delays have done – increased flight cancellations. Look at what the airlines did to find other revenues – they added exorbitant fees onto travelers if they couldn’t fit all their travel gear into a small bag. The airlines won’t pay for this requirement if it get enacted – everyone who travels will. I find it very difficult to believe that there is not a more reasonable cost way to achieve the same end goal.” [dig]

§3. Benefits and costs to airlines and airports

The commenter (usability/site design expert) countered with a different regulatory example: “This discussion seems to assume that it is difficult or expensive to make a kiosk accessible. It is not. It may take a change in corporate processes, or in our culture. But neither the technologies or design requirements are new and novel. Amtrak, for example, has had accessible kiosks for many years as have many local train services. Airline kiosks are even easier, because they don’t have to be ‘hardened’ for outside use.” S/he questioned how, if most of the $750 per unit cost is design and development, the costs would not go down with additional units. In any event, “if they save $3.70 per passenger using a kiosk, it doesn’t take many passengers with disabilities to make up for the cost.”

However, one commenter (traveler) disputed this: “If this would save airlines $45.9 million in labor costs they would have already eagerly done this on their own.” For a similar comment from a different commenter, see the Kiosks: Accessibility standards final summary.

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 4 comments from 2 users; moderators responded twice.

One user described her/himself as a traveler and a travel agency owner or staff. The other described her/himself as a site designer or programmer, usability expert, and an air carrier staff member. [dig]

§2. General summary

One commenter (travel agency owner or staff) disagreed with requiring any website redesign: “The best compromise is simply to require the airlines to provide the same pricing by telephone or TTY as is available on the web, for those with disabilities. This will be a whole lot cheaper to implement and avoid a whole lot of unnecessary rework for websites.”

The second commenter (airline staff member and a site designer or programmer/usability expert) criticized the proposal to regulate online ticket agents (OTAs) indirectly by holding airlines accountable for accessibility of OTAs’ websites. S/he pointed out that DOT is already regulating OTAs directly for fare advertisements (noting recent large fines imposed on Orbitz) and strongly argued that DOT should take the same direct regulation approach to accessibility. “Why would we expect airlines to face fines for content and functionality that they do not directly control?” This commenter also asked how DOT would enforce such a policy: “Sending a notice is easy. Checking for full accessibility compliance is not and is costly. Is the expectation that the airline would do more than send a notice or adjust contracts to note that the OTA site(s) should be accessible or be held accountable for any fines? Would it be the airline fined rather than the OTA if a violation of regulations was found?”

Additionally, the commenter posed a question: “Will transactional HTML emails generated by the website be included in the content that is required to be accessible?”

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

Two people commented on the proposed timeline for website accessibility; each made one comment. Moderators responded twice.

One commenter self-identified as a site designer or programmer. The other self-identified as a traveler with visual and mobility impairments who uses a cane and needs assistance with reading information on computers.

[dig]

§2. General summary

One commenter (site designer or programmer/usability expert) responded to the proposal that completely new sites that come online 6 months after the regulations become effective” pointed out: “ That is often a year or more after they are approved. That seems long enough.” This commenter was concerned that it could end up taking five to seven years to achieve full compliance, and argued that there is no excuse for more delay: “Making a web site accessible is old technology. WCAG 2.0 was completed in 2006 or 2007. The Section 508 refresh advisory committee finished at about the same time. That’s already 5 years ago.”

The other commenter (traveler with visual and mobility impairments) emphasized her/his frustration with having to call airlines to make reservations and being told that because someone has to assist him/her with the reservation, s/he cannot receive the same prices and options as travelers who can access the websites. This commenter supports the proposal that travelers with disabilities should have equal access to opportunities available on the Web without having to incur extra charges.

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

This post received 9 comments from 4 users; moderators responded 6 times. All users described themselves as travelers. Additionally, two are relatives or friends of a traveler with a disability and one is a disability advocate. All four users said they have a disability: two had vision, one mobility and one hearing. All four said they used assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chair, computer screen reader, braille printer, book reader, text to-speech software, captioning, and videophone.
[dig]

§2. Proposal to include ticket scanners beyond security

Responding to the question (raised in DOT’s November 21, 2011 notice) about the costs of including ticket scanners behind security checkpoints, a commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses text-to-speech software) suggested that DOT should consider the benefits of reduced airline staff time serving passengers unable to use the current generation of scanner. This time could then “be devoted to more complicated problems during the irregular operations (such as passengers whose reservations must have the service of airline staff).”
[dig]

§3. Non-Airport Kiosks

With respect to including kiosks outside airports, comment was mixed.

One commenter (traveler and with a visual disability who uses a screen reader, braille printer, and book reader) favored inclusion. Pointing out that the Americans with Disabilities Act permits a person with a disability who is unable to drive a car to request a driver for a rental car, s/he explained: “If I were paying for a rental car or conducting some other transaction … I would need the privacy of an accessible kiosk.”

However, two other commenters, although otherwise supportive of kiosk accessibility, believe that the burdens of regulatory overlap will create more harm than good if non-airport kiosks are included. One (traveler with a visual disability who uses text-to-speech software) wrote: “This having to meet two sets of regulations, intended to achieve the same goal, is a true example of inappropriate overreach and bureaucracy which will frustrate the cause of accessibility. Alternatively, DOT and DOJ should determine which standard will apply.” Another (disability advocate who has a hearing disability and who uses captioning and videophone), suggested that “If DOJ’s ADA regulations already apply to existing kiosks, DOT should simply enforce DOJ’s regs rather than making a different set of regs with different standards” — unless “there is something about the environment/procedures that makes current DOJ standards inadequate.”[dig]

§4. New kiosks; retrofits; interim approach

One commenter (traveler with a mobility impairment who uses a wheel chair) argued strongly that all new kiosks, as well as all retrofits, should “should be based on universal principles, usability features and 508.” S/he added that in practice, “separate is not equal.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual impairment who uses a screen reader, braille printer, and book reader) is concerned about having fewer than all kiosks accessible: “If only some kiosks are accessible, how will a blind customer entering the airport or waiting in line know where to find them? Currently the airlines have used kiosks to replace personnel. When I arrive at airports, I often have a great deal of difficulty, and waste a lot of time, finding a person to help me check in. Passengers who require assistance to get to the gate need to check in with a person who can arrange this help, not at a kiosk.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses text-to-speech software) suggests that, initially, DOT should require the accessible kiosks to be placed in the lines reserved for priority/elite/premium class passengers. “This would best reduce disabled users’ wait times (since airlines work to make these lines short), are in a location identifiable in another way, and will ensure that disabled priority/elite/premium class passengers have access to accessible kiosks. While this will stigmatize some disabled passengers, it seems the best interim solution until the goal of 100% accessibility is achieved.” In response to the moderator’s question whether travelers with disabilities are already able to use the priority/elite/premium lines, the commenter explained: “Passengers with disabilities are often already able to use the priority/elite/premium class lines today (though this is probably on more of an ad hoc, charity basis and not as a matter of right). When 100% accessibility is achieved, it is indeed my hope that passengers with disabilities would be able to use every line–and the line most appropriate to their travel just as their non-disabled fellow customers.”

Please take a few minutes to fill out this SHORT survey about your experience with Regulation Room. Your feedback lets us make the site more useful. To show our appreciation for your help, 2 people who respond by the end of January will receive $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com.

§1. What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of discussion on the “Websites: Accessibility standards?” post between September 29, 2011 and January 3, 2012. (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.) This summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made. This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong, or unclear.

Important dates:

January 3-8: Comments can be made here on the draft
January 9: Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record. (January 9 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion. This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one. Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.

Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule. (Why? See Effective Commenting) Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give DOTa sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.[dig]

§2. Who participated?

This post received 26 comments from 14 users; moderators responded 15 times.

Eleven users described themselves as travelers. Of those eleven, six said they were relatives/friends of a traveler with a disability, one is a travel agency owner or staff, and one is a site designer or programmer/usability expert. One user described his/her-self as an accessibility consultant, one as a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability, one as a site designer or programmer and usability expert, and one as being disabled and wishing to assist others in being independent while traveling.

Eleven of the users self identified as having a disability – four with mobility, five with visibility, and two with hearing. Ten said they used assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chairs, canes, service animal, screen readers, text-to-speech software, braille display, iPhone voiceover, and a hearing aid.

Several comments made on this post discussed benefits and costs of the proposed regulations. Those comments are summarized at Websites: Benefits and Costs draft summary.

[dig]

§3. General overview

Almost all commenters on this post supported DOT setting website accessibility standards. One of the dissenting commenters, who self identified as a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability, characterized the proposed regulation as “government intrusion” and expressed concern over the effects of the regulations on a weak economy. Another argued that accessibility could be provided as effectively and more cheaply by telephone and TTY. (These comments are included in the Websites: Benefits and Costs draft summary.) Commenters supporting the regulation argued for adopting both technical and performance standards, and suggested innovative ways to ensure compliance. [dig]

§4. WCAG 2.0 AA technical standards; possible alternatives; conforming alternate versions; mobile

Three commenters specifically endorse using the WCAG 2.0 AA standards. One (traveler with a visual disability) argues that such guidelines are “current and appropriate” given the “global community” that uses air travel websites.

However, another commenter (accessibility consultant) argues that “WCAG 2.0 AA is too ‘complicated’” and urges DOT to require instead “WCAG [2.0] A plus Contrast (3.2.2) and especially Focus indication (2.4.7) for keyboard users.” And another commenter (travel agency owner or staff) is concerned that the proposed standards are implemented by “very few commercial websites.” The commenter (accessibility consultant) responded by providing an article on the current state of accessibility among the top online retail sites, which can be found at http://jimthatcher.com/eretailers.htm.

Another commenter (traveler who has both mobility and visual impairments) pointed out that some “people who are deaf or deaf/blind have English as a second language. A lot of these individuals may have American Sign Language as their primary language. Alternate formats of the way information is provided can at times help these individuals deal with making decisions and reservations in an English speaking world.”

Finally, one commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) argues that DOT’s legal standard must keep pace with changes to web design trends: “Regardless of which standard is used, the standard should be linked to the current published version of the technical standards. Web design trends change faster than the federal regulatory process. To avoid this problem, the regulation should have an “automatic update” provision so that the legally enforceable technical standard changes to match the most current version of WCAG or Section 508 when updates to those standards are published by W3 or the Access Board. Perhaps a grace period of six months from publication would be sufficient to allow for compliance. If it is absolutely necessary to go through the notice and comment process in order to update the legally enforceable technical standards, then DOT should automatically initiate a parallel regulatory update that adopts the new version of the standard on the day they are published by either w3 or the Access Board.”

On conforming alternate versions, one commenter (person with both mobility and visual impairments), pointed out that pictures and pop-ups make websites more difficult to navigate for screen reading programs. S/he suggests that “websites should have a text-only version in addition to making the regular site accessible.” A second commenter (person with a visual disability) seems to be advocating this as well when s/he writes: “I think that regardless of the accessibility of a web site, there needs to be tools in place to allow a disabled user to access the information, either by clicking a link that takes him or her to a web site that will be accessible to either a screen reader, voice activation, or other modes of accessibility.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) disagreed with allowing any type of alternate version of websites. S/he wrote: “the final regulations should explicitly prohibit use of conforming alternate versions of the primary website. History has proven that separate but equal is never an effective approach to public access. As a regular user of assistive technology and several carrier websites, I have experienced situations where there were material gaps in the information and functionality on the text-only site compared with that on the carrier’s primary site.” This commenter went on to tell the story of what his/her experience using one airline’s current text-only alternate site: “I visited a carriers text-only site and noticed that the list of airports to choose from in a drop-down menu listed an airport that the carrier no longer serviced. The primary page was updated to display only the currently serviced airports but the users of the text-only page were unaware of the omitted airport. I regularly observe similar problems where the text-only pages lag behind updates made to the primary website. I now always attempt to use the primary version of a website first because the text-only version is not often updated in a timely manner or has broken links that go unfixed for long periods of time. I suspect that the problems with the text-only sites fall below the radar because of the small population of disabled users multiplied by the unwillingness of disabled persons to spend time voicing a complaint once they have already spent a large amount of time working with an inaccessible website interface. (In my experience, I once opted to patronize a different carrier instead of wasting further time filing a complaint against the offending carrier’s text-only website). Even considering the already relatively small size of the disability community, many members of that community likely use the primary site which detracts from the number of users who are testing and providing feedback on the text-only site. Further, the carrier’s investment of resources in establishing a under-used and under-maintained text-only version detracts from making the primary website fully accessible and fully integrated.” S/he also pointed out that most carriers already make a “good percentage of their primary pages accessible. It wouldn’t take much more work for carriers to ensure that the remaining portions that are not accessible come into compliance with the technical standards.”

On mobile sites, a commenter (traveler with a mobility disability) suggests: “DOT should consider requiring airline carriers to interface all messaging information (apps, instant messaging, and a like) with personal mobility devices. In this regard persons with hard of hearing, blindness and other ailments can be kept informed equally as well as those without disabilities.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses JAWS and iPhone voiceover) argues that the definition of “website” in the rule should cover “all web-based forms of electronic information technology and alternative versions of the information delivered on a website,” specifically mobile versions of sites and mobile apps. S/he points out that many airlines are using mobile apps on the iPhone, Google Android, or other mobile operating systems as alternatives or supplements to traditional websites. Therefore, people with disabilities should have access to these new forms of electronic information as well. This commenter also said that s/he accesses the mobile apps for his/her favorite venders as often as the traditional websites. [dig]

§5. Performance as well as technical standards

Three commenters specifically addressed this issue and advocated adopting performance as well as technical standards.

One (usability expert) pointed out that “design standards set minimum requirements, but only actual usability standards can make sure the sites actually work.” S/he noted that the National Institute of Standards and Technology is working on setting performance standards for voting machines and suggested that this would be a possible path for DOT to follow. “Another way to set a performance standard is through actual performance. Not expert review, but a real usability test. The passing metrics could take into account variations in expertise of users, setting the bar at a reasonable place.” Overall, “[t]he challenge is creating an appropriate test that is neither too difficult or expensive.” S/he strongly urged that “DOT needs to work not only with the disability community, but also with usability experts.”

A second commenter (traveler with a visual disability) also supported adopting performance standards as well as technical standards, arguing that “[b]eing able to complete transactions with not much more time required is ultimately what matters.” To DOT’s question “To what types and versions of assistive technologies should it apply?” this commenter responded: “The types and versions of assistive technologies should be those used commonly by blind consumers (in the case of this section); these are readily identifiable as those exhibiting at conventions of these blind consumers.” Another (traveler with both mobility and visual impairments) argued that sites “should be made compatible to Dragon Dictate and other programs that assist individuals with visual impairments and blindness in reading text.” [dig]

§6. Verifying compliance

One commenter (traveler with a hearing impairment and as a friend or relative of a traveler with a disability) warned: “My experience with the self-monitoring is that corners are cut, or ignored all together. You need to have compliance checked by an outside source or it will simply fall by the wayside.” When asked by the moderator for specific ideas, s/he responded: “Provide a customer survey either prominently on the website or via pop-up to ask users their opinion, I would ask their permission to send them a survey (dependent on disability), I would randomly check the site myself to ensure compliance. … I might also work with colleges/universities to ask students with and without disabilities to report on the site (when worked out with professors they might get some sort of school credit).”

Another (usability expert) agreed that an onsite “feedback mechanism would be ideal. It would be better to have a way for consumers to report problems so they are fixed than for everything to turn into a lawsuit.”

A third (traveler with a mobility disability) suggested: “Carriers should be required to incorporate disability teams (from the community and their staff) to by annually [biannually?] assess the entire travel ribbon for accessibility barriers. These reports should be sent to DOT to help deconstruct the multiple enforcement agency responsibilities.” This commenter also suggested that “DOT should rely on the [U.S.] access board airport technical guideline sheet.” [dig]

§6. New problem

One commenter (traveler with a mobility impairment) identified a significant problem for travelers with disabilities: “Many airline websites will not allow online check, nor through their kiosks, if your reservation is ‘flagged’ as having special needs (such as traveling with your own wheelchair or a service animal), therefore requiring check-in at the counter, even if all they do is issue a boarding pass. While not specific to the format and accessibility for those with communication impairments, it does have an impact on all travelers with a disability who are able to use online check-in or at a kiosk, who do not need additional assistance getting to the gate.”

§1. What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of discussion on the “Websites: Accessibility standards?” post between September 29, 2011 and January 3, 2012. (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.) This summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made. This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong, or unclear.

Important dates:

January 3-8: Comments can be made here on the draft
January 9: Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record. (January 9 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion. This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one. Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.

Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule. (Why? See Effective Commenting) Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.[dig]

§2. Who participated?

This post received 48 comments from 16 users; moderators responded 23 times.

Twelve users described themselves as travelers. Of those twelve, one described his/her-self as also being a disability advocate, three as relatives/friends of a traveler with disability, and one as a travel agency owner or staff. One user described his/her-self as a relative/friend of a traveler with a disability, two as a site designers or programmers and useability experts (one of these two specified that were also a researcher in disabilities and universal design), and one as a being interested in the protection of the traveling public.

Nine of the users self identified as having a disability – four with mobility, four with visibility, and one with hearing. All nine said they used assistive/adaptive technology, including: wheel chair, cane, walker, captioning, videophone, screen magnifier, screen reader, braille printer, book reader, text-to-speech software, and large print.

[dig]

§3. Necessity/desirability of kiosk accessibility standards

One commenter expressed uncertainty about whether “DOT and DOJ are the best people to propose such a standard.” Another commenter (travel agent who is blind) replied. S/he spoke from personal experience about the necessity of regulations for airport kiosks and websites due to a growing number of individuals who are blind, whether by birth, disease, accidents, or from being veterans. S/he is a member of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), which has had accessibility cases against airports dismissed because the “ADA doesn’t have any jurisdiction at the airports or the websites in this matter.”

One commenter (travel agency owner or staff) spoke out against “revamping all the kiosks,” suggesting instead a “priority lane” where travelers with disabilities could get “personal assisted service.” (A similar comment from this commenter appears in the Kiosks: Costs & Benefits draft summary.) The commenter (travel agent who is blind) responded that travelers with disabilities want “independence and not special treatment.” Another commenter (traveler and someone with a friend or relative who has a disability) agreed that “[s]egregating people with disabilities into a separate line is … stigmatizing,” and explained that people with disabilities are “normal people” who want “equal treatment” not “special treatment.”

One commenter (traveler) suggested that this was an example of “government trying to implement an inefficient and costly requirement.” S/he further predicted that the airlines will not absorb the cost of complying with this regulation and would pass it on to “everyone who travels.” Finally, this commenter found it “very difficult to believe” that there wasn’t an alternative with a “more reasonable” cost. The commenter (travel agent who is blind) disagreed, stating “if someone cannot use something that everyone else can, that is downright discrimination.” Another reiterated the importance of independence: “disabled people would benefit greatly from air travel accessibility kiosks in that in the growing age of computers, people would not be needed for their special assistance.” [This comment was made on the Website: Benefits and Costs post.]

Another commenter (traveler) suggested that there should not be “government regulations” on kiosk accessibility, because airline industry competition would “create similar accessibility standards” if they were cost efficient. (See the Kiosks: Costs and benefits draft summary for a similar comment from another commenter.) This commenter also suggested that “there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis” to “determine if the benefit is really worth the cost;” s/he did not respond to the moderator’s question about whether s/he considered the cost analysis done by DOT adequate. [dig]

§4. Other standards

Four commenters suggested that DOT should consider other standards and technologies to create guidelines for airport kiosks.

One (site designer or programmer/usability expert) suggested DOT consider incorporating parts of the Election Assistance Commission’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) (particularly chapter 3) because they “specifically address[] kiosk-type systems” without requiring use of “personal assistive technology.” S/he included a link to the VVSG and explained that these standards “draw[] on 508 and WCAG along with AADAG.” A second commenter (traveler with visual and mobility disabilities) concurred.

Another (travel agent who is blind) pointed out that people who are blind have been using ATMs “for a very long time” and that many accessibility features of ATMs have already been established. Discussing DOT’s questions regarding volume controls, this commenter pointed to ATMs and said, “[t]his is basically standard stuff.”

On the other hand, see the next section for the reservations of one commenter (researcher in disabilities and universal design) about whether ATM standards are completely appropriate for kiosks.

Another commenter (person with a mobility impairment who uses a wheelchair) was optimistic that “a review of currently available technology and the experience of people with disabilities in its use, should be helpful in developing kiosks that can be adequately used by most people with most disabilities. I don’t see why most kiosks can’t be accessible by the time the rules are effective.” [dig]

§5. Specific aspects of proposed standards

Several commenters had reactions and suggestions to specific elements of the proposed kiosk standard. One commenter in particular (researcher in disabilities and universal design) made multiple detailed comments. These are summarized in the sections that follow.

At the same time, a recurring theme of commenters who self-identified as having disabilities was that DOT should consult with, and test proposed standards on, individuals with disabilities. (One noted that such testing is needed to accurately assess costs and benefits.) [dig]

§6. Auditory output; privacy

Commenters are concerned about sensitive information being handled by airport kiosks and some had suggestions for how to maximize traveler privacy.

The commenter (travel agent who is blind) explained that travelers with disabilities resolve this issue by carrying earphones and plugging them into kiosks that have “standard sockets.” S/he also suggested that the community of people with disabilities “know[s] what is out there that we can use, and how to do it to protect privacy” — the “only thing these businesses have to do is ask.”

A commenter (researcher in disabilities and universal design) addressed this issue in depth: “Because financial transactions are being conducted on such kiosks, a private listening option must be provided through an industry-standard headset connector. A headset/headphone jack is better than a handset, because people may not have two hands free to simultaneously hold the handset and operate the device (for example, because they are holding luggage or have a physical limitation). In addition, a headset jack is required to allow users to connect their own neckloops or other hearing technologies to the device besides just headphones. Because different headphones and other hearing technologies will result in different volumes when plugged in, a volume control must be also be provided. Headphone jacks are typically the most inexpensive option available for providing sound. Computers inside a kiosk typically have audio output capability, so only a wire and jack mounted on the housing needs to be installed. Installing a speaker for use in public locations typically requires installation of speakers and an audio amplifier.”

S/he added: “It is possible to wirelessly pair a Bluetooth headset or headphones to a device to provide audio to the user. The biggest problem with Bluetooth audio is that a user must pair the device. Typically there are pairing settings in a visual menu on a Bluetooth enabled device, but a person who is blind cannot see to make the pairing and they cannot yet hear because the Bluetooth headset is not yet paired! Also, Bluetooth is likely of limited utility because not everyone who might use such wireless headsets at a kiosk owns a wireless headset or has them available when they need them. Today, a headphone jack is a better choice to use because more people carry around personal headphones for private listening. Airlines buy inexpensive headphones in bulk and could potentially make them available to customers who need them for the kiosk. Thus, Bluetooth could be provided but it would have to be in addition to a headphone jack, not instead of one.”

One commenter (traveler who has mobility and visual disabilities) specifically asked for design specifications that protect privacy for travelers with visual disabilities to use credit cards: “I have had to use strangers to help me put in credit cards etc. when using a kiosk and this is very concerning to me. I am hopeful that when designing a new kiosk system there would be some privacy guidelines and/or shell so that a person can put in there ID and Credit Card for charges without having to be totally in the open.” See the next section for this commenter’s discussion of the needed tactile signaling. [dig]

§7. Volume control

Two commenters addressed the importance of volume control specifications.

The travel agent who is blind wrote that ATMs and other machines have up/down controls for volume, and that “[t]his is basically standard stuff.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design addressed the issue in detail: “It is important that a system have volume control for all forms of audio output. This includes both the standard output and any assistive audio output. People plugging in headphones or hearing technologies into headphone jacks need to have control over the audio because the volumes vary widely for different headphones. What might be a fine volume for one person with one set of headphones might be painfully loud to another person with a different set of headphones. With speakers, the user may need to adjust the volume to account for ambient noise or their own ability to hear.”

S/he warned, however: “Note that specifying an absolute volume level for headphones cannot be done because of differences between headphones. The audio signal should be provided at a standard output level for the jack with volume control. People who need significant amplification beyond what is usually provided at the audio jack of a computer or kiosk may carry a personal audio amplifier or amplified headphones. It is important that the method of changing the volume does not require the person to initially hear the audio. For example, a person who is blind and has difficulty hearing at the default level would not be able to adjust the volume if the only means for doing so were to navigate through audio menus on the system. Finally, since some users who are hard of hearing may set the volume very high, it is important that the volume be reset after each user.” [dig]

§8. Tactile symbols

Commenters strongly supported a requirement for “tactile symbols” on kiosks.

The commenter site designer or programmer/usability expert said, “I applaud the inclusion of a standard set of symbols for common functions. Unlike a personal computer, we use many different airlines. It will help if they all have the same tactile symbols.”

The commenter researcher in disabilities and universal design said, “Tactile controls that meet the specifications in Section 508 [36 CFR 1194.23(k) & .25(c)] are good to include. Having tactilely discernible controls is good for people who must explore the device and find controls by touch. It is necessary to be able to find the controls without activating them or surrounding controls by simply touching them. Similarly, providing the status of toggle/locking controls audibly or tactilely is good for people who cannot see so that they can determine the status. It is best if they do not need to change the status in order to discover it; however, since it is easily reversed, this is not necessary.”

At the same time, s/he cautioned: “The tactile markings are taken from the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for ATM keys on a numeric keypad. Those exact markings should not be required for *all* other types of keypads, keyboards, or controls because they are not appropriate in all circumstances–for example, the Enter key on a keyboard is discernible by location and size (and shape in many cases) and should not be required to also have a raised circular tactile icon on it. As another example, a different device with right and left keys for navigation might be marked with raised right and left arrows, which would conflict with the Clear/Correct labeling of ATMs. It might be best for the ATM conventions to apply if an ATM-like interface and keypad is used, but it is too limiting for other circumstances and approaches to making kiosks accessible.”

With respect to keypad & keyboard arrangement, this commenter emphasized: “Numeric keys on a physical, hardware input device must be available in a standard arrangement for people who touch type and cannot see. Number keys may be provided in a 3×4 numeric keypad in (1) an ascending (telephone-style) or (2) descending (10-key computer style) arrangement of keys or (3) in a line at the top of a touch-type-able QWERTY keyboard. These three arrangements are common and recognized by users. It would be good to specify a QWERTY arrangement for physical, hardware keyboards on which users can touch type if they are included on kiosk. Many people who are blind can touch type.”

The commenter who expressed concern about privacy of inputting credit cards made a plea for clear tactile signals: “As a person with a visual and mobility disability I find it difficult to use kiosks because it is very hard to put in credit cards etc. because there is no guide (something tactile to put my credit card in before it is loaded). I know that most airlines are going to a kiosk only check in and no human person to assist and it is frustrating because I can’t see or feel where to put in information and/or get information out such as boarding passes etc.” [dig]

§9. Touchscreens

Commenters were concerned about how touchscreen technology would be treated.

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability) warned: “Not all blind people are knowledgeable about operating touch screens. The learning curve is too steep for the airline check-in process.” S/he believes that “a keypad with distinct keys as described on this page for ATMs or mass transit ticket machines is much more readily accessible.”

Another (traveler with a visual disability) addressed DOT’s statement about software being available to help people with visual disabilities use touchscreens. S/he warned that “the recent software is useful for many users but will likely not be useful for all of them.” S/he urged that “DOT should consider testing this software with a wide range of potential users so that a proper cost-benefit analysis can be completed before making a revision to allow this software as an alternative to tactile keys.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design agreed that having a touchscreen only design is problematic and suggested an additional design specification for the new regulation: “Some people cannot easily use a touchscreen or other controls if that touchscreen requires body or skin contact. For example, a person with prosthetic hands would not be able to use a capacitive touchscreen. While it would be preferable if they could use the touchscreen directly, the person should at least be able to use alternative controls to access the device. A new provision might read: ‘Usable without body contact. A least one mode of operation for all functionality shall be provided that does not require body contact or close contact.’” [dig]

§10. Timed response/timeouts

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability) emphasized: “Time-outs are an accessibility barrier. Especially when using a new kiosk, it takes additional time for other users and me to learn how to conduct a transaction. For example, Amtrak has accessible kiosks, which are very useful for printing a ticket already purchased (equivalent to just getting a boarding pass for a flight), but it may take significantly longer to complete more complex transactions (such as changing a reservation) if I hadn’t done it before.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design agreed: “Timeouts that cannot be extended present an accessibility barrier to people who cannot see and who must slowly navigate through items on the screen and then listen to them. Timeouts are also an accessibility barrier to people who have slow movement, those who need to plan movement in advance, those who need time to digest information they had just heard or read, and to people who may lock up or freeze when they realize they are under a perceived short deadline to get something done.”

S/he suggested: “Certainly, unattended kiosks often need to have an inactivity timeout that resets the kiosk if the user leaves in the middle of a transaction. However, a kiosk can have short timeouts and still provide sufficient time for those who need it. It can also have short timeouts and still provide sufficient warning for people who need to request more time but cannot respond quickly. Because some people cannot respond quickly, the length of time available for the user to request more time should be specified in the DOT guidelines. To harmonize with other standards, a value of 20 sec. should be used (starting after the message is provided and read). For example, if the kiosk is required to reset after 45 seconds of inactivity, the person could be warned after 25 seconds with a displayed and audio message and then have 20 more seconds to respond.” [dig]

§11. Flashing lights speech recognition

The researcher in disabilities and universal design suggested a design specification for protecting travelers with epilepsy: “People with photosensitive epilepsy may have seizures if there is fast, bright flashing from lights or a display. As an easy rule of thumb, fewer than three flashes per second is generally considered safe. Flashing faster than that rate may be safe, but depends on the intensity and size of the flashing area. The web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2) has a standard for flashing that is useful.” [dig]

§12. Speech recognition

Commenters had concerns about the possibility that accessible kiosks could require speech recognition.

The researcher in disabilities and universal design explianed: “Some people cannot speak clearly enough or at all to use speech recognition systems. For example, a speech recognition system may be unable to understand the speech of a person who became deaf early in life. While speech recognition is not generally included as an option in today’s kiosks it is technology that is being used more widely in consumer electronics now, and a provision should be added to future-proof the legislation.” S/he suggested possible language for the final rule: “Usable without speech. At least one mode of operation for all functionality shall be provided that does not require user speech.”

Agreeing with these concerns, another commenter (traveler with mobility and speech disabilities) explained that s/he has epilepsy, so not only are “flashing lights out of the question,” but s/he “also cannot speak loudly or clearly enough due to an implant to control [his/her] seizures.” Therefore, speech recognition would be useless. [dig]

§13. Biometric input

The researcher in disabilities and universal design stated that “A biometrics provision like this is very important to include preemptively so that equivalent provisions do not need to be added later if/when biometrics become more widely used. Retrofitting a kiosk later to include a biometric alternative would certainly be very expensive. This gives vendors and airlines clear guidelines for biometrics and allows them to calculate the cost of inclusion.”

Another commenter (traveler with a visual disability) agreed saying, “Designing a feature to be accessible from the ground up is cheaper and takes less work than retrofitting.” S/he worried that a failure to preemptively establish standards would lead to biometric systems that were not accessible without further regulation, leading to a “burdensome process for people who cannot use the technology.” “People with disabilities are often left behind with technology upgrades and putting regulations into effect now would prevent that.” Additionally, s/he pointed out that “[i]f equipment manufactures know the rules before they design technologies, they can incorporate it.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design also suggested that “[h]aving two biometric identification or control systems is usable by more people than only having one. However, there are some people, such as some veterans, who might have difficulty with both a fingerprint and iris scanner for example. A system with a non-biometric alternative would be usable by more people than a two-biometric system.”

The same commenter who agreed with the need to preemptively establish guidelines for biometrics agreed: “It is essential to have multiple methods of biometric identification. Eye disease can prevent adequate imaging of the iris or retina, or an inability to hold the eye still.” [dig]

§14. Contrast ratio

The researcher in disabilities and universal design urged that the final rule contain a specification for contrast ratio on the kiosk screen borrowed from the same standards being proposed for website accessibility: “A value for the contrast ratio between text and its background should be specified so that designers have guidance about how much contrast is necessary. In order to harmonize with other standards, a value of 3:1 should be used (using the formula in the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2). For enhanced contrast, a ratio of 1:4.5 or even of 1:7 might be specified.” [dig]

§15. Captioning; coordinating speech and visual outputs

The researcher in disabilities and universal design emphasized the broader value of captioning: “The captioning provision is a good provision and should be kept. Besides being helpful to travelers who cannot hear well, captions are helpful for all people when the airport environment is too loud. It also helps those travelers for whom English is a second language because they can both read and listen.”

Another commenter (disability advocate with a hearing disability) suggested, “If closed-captioned, the trigger (whether icon, button, key, etc.) to activate captions should be clearly visible and easy to find. Perhaps a standardized location.”

The researcher in disabilities and universal design also strongly supported coordinating visual and speech outputs: “It is very good that the provision requires that the speech output be coordinated with visual output for the [reasons given in the NPRM]. It should also be noted that many people who are legally blind can see, and the visual display can be helpful for them even if the text is too small to be read. A headphone jack would be better than a handset because a person might not be able to use two hands (e.g., holding luggage or because of disability) to both control the device and hold the handset.”

However, s/he suggests a terminology change to avoid confusion: “The provision references being ‘speech enabled.’ People reading the provision may initially assume the phrase means ‘speech recognition,’ because of increasing consumer familiarity with that technology. Instead, the phrase ‘speech output’ should be used because it is more accurate.” [dig]

§16. Physical standards: Height; clear floor space

The researcher in disabilities and universal design suggested a specific wording change to the proposed standard: “This is a useful provision for people in wheelchairs and people with short stature. The intent of the provision is that people can read the display from a point 40 inches high, not simply view it. Revising the provision slightly, using the word ‘readable’ instead of ’visible’ would make the intent clear.” [dig]

§17. Other problems faced by travelers with disabilities

One commenter (traveler with a visual disability who uses a screen reader) urged DOT to consider the need for “more mobile and hands on devices to provide access to information at the kiosk and information boards. Possible links to i phones to list current information or EM alerts. At present screen readers are not workable on weblinks and the touch screens at data terminals are not usable.”

Two commenters (traveler with mobility and vision disabilities and friend or relative of a traveler with a disability who also has mobility and speech disabilities his/her-self) expressed frustration that airport schedule signage is also not accessible and is not covered by this proposed rule. The traveler with mobility and vision disabilities explained: “I am wondering if there would be a way of auditorily accessing information on the display screens (that are high above and give information about whether or not flights are on time and when they will be flying). At this time it is very frustrating because even if you are at a gate and knew the initial departure of your plane the gate display does not necessarily tell you about changes to that departure time or to the gate. I have run into situations where the gate and departure times have changed and because there was not human interaction it was hard to dealing with the situation. I also have a mobility disability and need airport assistance to get from check in to the gate and had no way to access airport assistance if my gate changed. The people that provide assistance with getting me wheelchair assistance from gate to gate were not available if there were changes. This is probably due to the lack of personnel as well as hardships relating to trying to keep track of people who need assistance and when they need assistance.”

Finally, a commenter (traveler with a mobility disability who uses a wheel chair) wrote about a proposed benefit from kiosk accessibility, which belonged on the Kiosks: Benefits and Costs of Accessibility post. The commenter said, “[T]he more that I can manage my whole travel experience without a lot of interaction with staff, the more seamless my trip will be. At present, I try to do as much as possible online, but once at the airport I still need to negotiate red caps, security personnel, gate check-in personnel, luggage handlers and flight attendants, many of whom still do not have a clear idea of how to interact with people with disabilities. The kiosks will make little impact on this.” [This comment was made on the Website: Benefits and Costs post.]