Theme:Harmonization

From TEITAC

Harmonization means the adoption of specific accessibility standards and guidelines across as many jurisdictions as feasible. Harmonization results in a unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit from clarity and simplicity. Industry supports harmonization because it lets companies address accessibility through a global process rather than by trying to meet conflicting standards in different countries. This should result in more accessible products. Consumers thus benefit directly from harmonization; they also benefit indirectly because harmonization allows advocates to focus their efforts onto fewer standards development activities.

Accessibility has attracted the attention of standards bodies in diverse fields. There are accessibility standards in architecture, ICT hardware, software, web development, consumer electronics, transportation, education, and other fields. These have arisen independently through different professions and in different countries.

In the course of the last decade these standards and guidelines have proliferated, along with a general awareness that some of the relevant provisions might be in conflict with each other.

In October 2004, Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1) of the International Standards Organization (ISO) established a Special Working Group on Accessibility (SWG-A) to gather both user needs and existing accessibility standards so as to chart the way forward.

This could mean "working with SWG-A to harmonize standards", in which case its almost identical to the previous theme. Or it could mean "comparing implementation practices across jurisdictions", which is valuable, but out of our scope. The most valuable effort we could make here would be to draft Standards so that they are as globally clear as possible and easiest for jurisdictions to adopt without changing. Definitions of terms, especially for translation, link this theme to the work of the Subpart_A subcommittee.

Jim Tobias I'm using the term "jurisdictions" instead of "countries" because one of the US issues is how to make sure we do not have 50 different state versions of 508. It has been mentioned that states either adopt 508 or do not, but some have made an effort to adapt it as they adopt it. It's also the case that some US federal agencies have adapted 508 as well, by creating additional requirements or provisions. We should understand both state and agency "deviations" as evidence of dissatisfaction with specific 508 provisions, and decide how to address those as we revise the regs.

Andi Snow-Weaver: In an ideal world, it would mean that two standards which are harmonized are exactly the same. This is almost the case with ISO 9241 part 171 and ANSI/HFES 200. The provisions are almost identical and the normative requirements of ISO are the same as the Level 1 requirements in HFES 200. But we don't have an ideal world so the minimum we should be able to achieve is that there are no conflicts between two standards that are hamonized. It should at least be possible to comply with both. Going a step further, where there exists an international accessibility standard for a domain covered by Section 508 or 255 that has been developed in a collaborative process, I think we should leverage the work that went into it when developing new 508 provisions to address gaps.

Diane Golden has posted some US State_Perspectives_on_Subpart_A; some of this is relevant to harmonization.

Other thoughts from the Web and Software subcommittee:

• From an industry perspective, harmonization means that we can build one product that we sell globally. This requires that countries either adopt an international standard or that country policies are derived from an international standard.

Part of TEITAC's harmonization task has been to develop material that reconciles the Section 255 Guidelines on telecommunications with the Section 508 Standard. Some of the individual provisions were in conflict, and both were in need of significant technological updating, especially concerning text communication and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The intent of the Access Board has been to prepare a single, unified set of provisions covering both Section 255 and Section 508 wherever possible. We believe that this Report renders the Committee's best judgement on these issues, and points towards significant opportunities for harmonization. At the same time we have explicitly called out situations and applications that should refer to the separate environments in which Section 255 and Section 508 operate, either within the text of a recommended provision, as a note attached to a provision, or in other text.