W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Is the accessibility of a 3rd party that represent me still my concern?

From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:33:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC9gL776F1d6mfhiPd45_hbH6r1-mBKNRNt1U-qKeg525XkLVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, wai-ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Druckman,Geri" <GDruckman@mdanderson.org>
Yes Scott, this is important. In fact we seem to be weak on images in
general.

Wayne

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> Great points Phil, I’d also point out for the benefit of everyone that in
> regards to Section 508 procurement that the government is required to
> procure the most compliant product that meets the business needs of the
> organization.  That is the a non-fully conformant product can be procured,
> however, the agency must still provide equivalent access for users that
> have disabilities.
>
>
>
> This is similar with the CVAA and other regulations – that is --  if
> accessibility cannot be achieved there still has to be a way for users with
> disabilities to have access to the information and services provided to
> users without disabilities.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:15 AM
> *To:* wai-ig
> *Cc:* Druckman,Geri
> *Subject:* RE: Is the accessibility of a 3rd party that represent me
> still my concern?
>
>
>
> I agree with the advice from Jonathan.
>         504, 508, etc are regulations that are or are not applicable to
> your institution.  Determining applicability and jurisdiction are typically
> consider "legal advice".
>         For example, 508 has jurisdiction over US Federal agencies (not
> the vendors directly), and:
>         "...Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop,
> procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology . . ."
> (Note 1)
>
> Which technical requirements your institution places on your vendors are
> consider your contractual / procurement requirements.  Whether 504 or 508
> requires your institution to place requirements in the contract are one
> thing, but that does not prevent your institution from placing the
> requirements in the contract whether or not your are required to by a
> regulation. The opposite is also unfortunately true, that many (at one
> point almost half) of the solicitations (RFP's) from the US Federal
> government did not include the required 508 requirement clauses that they
> should have had, so then vendors were not held to any contractual
> obligation even though the omission of the requirements in the contract did
> not absolve the Federal agencies obligation to comply with the 508
> regulation.
>
> Then there is the reality you mentioned of the vendor's solution not
> currently conforming to WCAG technical standards.  Remember the institution
> *complies* with applicable regulation.  The institution's solution,
> and/or the vendor's solutions *conforms* to technical standards.  One of
> the differences between contractual requirements and legal regulations is
> what applies to whom.  Your institution is the buyer, they can request and
> specify what ever they want, but as you mentioned, the vendor can also
> negotiate if and when it will conform to the requirements specified in the
> RFP and eventual contract. It is the vendor's choice or not to respond to
> your institutions RFP and/or agree or not to the proposed contract.
>
> Some procurement/negotiations questions to consider:
>
>    1. If the vendor's solution is not now fully conformant, when will it
>    be?
>
>
>    1. Is there a technical gap analysis of the issues, cost sizing, and
>    roadmap to achieve conformance?
>
>
>    1. If the vendor's solution is not now fully conformant, what other
>    vendor solutions or choices are available?
>
>
>    1. Can the institution provide additional assistive technology to its
>    users to mitigate the issues?
>
>
>    1. Are there other institutions (buyers/customers) that also have
>    similar accessibility requirements?  Could they join together in
>    negotiating with the vendor in resolving the non-conformance issues?
>
>
>    1. etc.
>
>
> Disclosure: I am neither a lawyer or procurement official, but I often
> advised them with recommendations as a subject matter expert,
> Note 1: Section  508 Standards 1194.1 Purpose:
> https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-standards#subpart_a
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins,
> Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
> IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
> ibm.com/able <http://www.ibm.com/able>
> facebook.com/IBMAccessibility <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
> twitter.com/IBMAccess
>
>
>
>
> From:        Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> To:        "Druckman,Geri" <GDruckman@mdanderson.org>, wai-ig <
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Date:        03/28/2016 08:32 PM
> Subject:        RE: Is the accessibility of a 3rd party that represent me
> still my   concern?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Geri, others have provided good advice – that indeed if you receive
> federal funds, provide access to electronic health records, appear on the
> federal marketplace, etc. then you will likely be subject to regulations
> such as Section 504, 508 (including CMS or HHS flavors), ADA, WCAG Level A
> (EHR) or other regulations such as functional performance requirements that
> apply the categories that I listed.  Requiring vendors to provide compliant
> products and services is likely the path you will need to take to ensure
> you are in compliance.  Ultimately if the regulations apply to you – you
> are then responsible for compliance – contracting out something does not
> absolve you of the responsibility if vendors want to do business with you
> then they need to conform to your procurement requirements.   This is not
> legal advice – if you have any questions about your legal obligations you
> should seek council.
>
> In case it comes up, there is a portion of the WCAG conformance
> requirements that address third party content on sites that you did not
> choose to put there – that is your site is hosted on a service and the
> service places third party ads on the site.  In those cases you can make a
> partial claim of conformance – but that does not appear to be the situation
> you are in.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Avila
> SSB BART Group
>
> *From:* Druckman,Geri [mailto:GDruckman@mdanderson.org
> <GDruckman@mdanderson.org>]
> * Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 4:21 PM
> * To:* wai-ig
> * Subject:* Is the accessibility of a 3rd party that represent me still
> my concern?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here’s a dilema I have, and I seek your advice hoping any of you have had
> to deal with a similar situation before.
> The institution I work for is in negotiations over a contract with a
> vendor that will supply us with a web based application solution.  This
> will NOT be hosted on our servers in any way, it is 100% on the vendors
> side, and our clients will receive an email with a link, directing them to
> the vendors site, where they will need to interact with said application.
>
> At the moment to vendor claims not to be section 508 / WCAG compliant and
> is seeking an exemption in the contract.
>
> My dilemma is, although we have nothing to do with the development or
> hosting of said application, we are still sending our clients over to that
> site to interact with it.  Is it still within my institutions
> responsibility to make sure that this vendor is accessible, or is this all
> on them?
>
> Any information is greatly appreciated.
>
> Geri Druckman
>
> (cross post with WebAIM)
> The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged,
> confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. This e-mail message may
> contain protected health information (PHI); dissemination of PHI should
> comply with applicable federal and state laws. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, any
> further review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message or any attachment (or the information contained therein) is
> strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail
> message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete all
> references to it and its contents from your systems.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 23:33:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 23:33:38 UTC