Instructional Software Accessibility: A Status Report

Guest columnist: Diane Cordry Golden

Currently a great deal of attention is focused on information technology accessibility for individuals with disabilities and implementation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 requires Federal agencies to procure and develop electronic and information technology that is accessible. Standards for compliance with Section 508 accessibility requirements were promulgated in rules by the Access Board and became effective in June,2001.

Federal agencies are currently implementing procedures to ensure procurement and development of accessible information technology products in compliance with the Section 508 standards. In turn, industry leaders that produce and market information technology products used by Federal agencies have geared up to ensure the accessibility of their product line. Many representatives of the information technology industry actively participated in the Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee convened by the Access Board to provide recommendations regarding the Section 508 rules.

For the most part, the Section 508 activities have focused on typical office products such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, Web browsers, electronic mail and calendar software, personal computers, telephones, voice mail systems, printers, and copiers. A similar level of attention has not been focused on instructional software used by pre-school, elementary and secondary school students. Federal government purchasing is fairly limited with respect to PK-12 instructional software products and those products have not been a focus of Section 508 activities. As a result, the companies that produce and market instructional software have not been engaged in accessibility initiatives at a level comparable to other portions of the information technology industry.

Current Initiatives to further Instructional Technology Accessibility

A few federally-funded initiatives have been addressing the issue of instructional software accessibility over the last few years, notably the National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) and the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). In addition, the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) in the U.S. Department of Education recently provided $5 million in awards to 10 regional grantees to support accessible education-based information technology. Specifically, the final funding priority as outlined in the Federal Register (Vol. 66. No.5, January 8, 2001) required grantees to provide technical assistance to educational entities on "ensuring that new IT acquisitions are accessible" and "encouraging educational entities to purchase IT consistent with the standards issued by the Access Board under Section 508 or universal design principles."

In general, NCAM and CAST activities have focused on theory and research along with development of standards and best practices for design of accessible media and universally designed instructional software. Neither project has been funded with an emphasis on delivering training and technical assistance to the instructional software industry. The ten new NIDRR grantees have just begun (October 1, 2001) their efforts to encourage educational entities to buy accessible instructional software. It is not clear that any of the ten regional awards, or the national technical assistance grantee for that priority, have plans for proactive work with instructional software companies.

To date, there has been no systematic review of the status of accessibility efforts within the instructional technology industry. Anecdotal information from advocates and special education providers consistently indicate that basic accessibility of instructional technology products is limited or non-existent.
"I have found absolutely no mainstream educational software that is compatible with JAWS or WindowEyes screen readers" --from an advocate.

"I just have the interpreter sign the speech part of the program so my kids can use the software" --from special education teacher.

CAST also notes it is their observation that "no curriculum or software program yet exists that is totally universally designed, some programs demonstrate incremental steps towards that goal."

Survey Structure

In an effort to establish a preliminary assessment of the current status of accessibility in instructional software used in the PK-12 environment, survey questions were posed to 25 "award winning" companies identified from the list of 2001 Codie Award winners and nominees (Software Information and Industry Association) and 2001 EDDIE Award winners (ComputED Learning Lab). The survey questions asked:

1. If the company's existing instructional software products were accessible for students with disabilities who use adaptive computer technology; specifically were products compatible with screen readers, screen enlargement software, alternative keyboards and pointing devices, and voice recognition.
2. If products in the company software line had any built-in access features such as captioning of audio output.
3. If the research and development for the company included accessibility considerations.

Each company's Web site was also reviewed for information on product accessibility.

Results

Responses were received from 19 of the 25 companies queried. Only two of the respondents reflected any level of awareness of accessibility considerations.

Company A was aware of Section508, aware of and active in activities within the "office product" software industry related to accessibility protocols, and had information about beginning accessibility activities on their Web site.

Company B was also aware of Section 508, but had not yet engaged in any response. As part of a larger software company that sells to the federal government, the company was aware of Section 508, and indicated that even though Section 508 requirements did not apply to K-12 schools, they felt strongly that they should try to make their products accessible. They had established an internal committee dedicated to accessibility efforts and were just beginning to develop a response plan.

The remaining 17 company responses are summarized as follows.
Well over half (65%) indicated that the company was not aware of accessibility as an issue. One of the companies took the time to follow up by phone and commented that they were amazed no one had brought this issue to their attention. They are a large volume company who sells primarily to K-12 but does sell their instructional software on a limited basis to the federal government, yet were completely unaware of Section 508 and accessibility in general.
All 17 (100%) indicated that the company is not currently addressing accessibility in its product development and marketing. All of the respondents indicated they had no real information on accessibility of their products. Most suggested that buyers should request demonstration software to see if a specific product was accessible.
The vast majority (88%) indicated the company has no plans to systematically address accessibility in the future. Only two of the seventeen, in addition to Company A and B cited previously, indicated that the company was considering addressing accessibility in the future. One was interested in trying to build in captioning to its speech output software and the other was planning to seek grant funding to help them try to address the issue in the future.

In addition, some of the responses reflected significant misconceptions about accessibility. These included:

1. The assistive technology industry was responsible for compatibility of add-on devices.
2. The assistive technology industry routinely tested their products with all instructional technology products and could provide compatibility information to potential buyers.
3. The assistive technology industry was evolving so fast that instructional software developers could not produce products that were compatible.
4. Adding built-in access features would negatively impact or be incompatible with the instructional purpose of the software.
5. Accessible products mean specially designed products (e.g., lower reading level) for students with disabilities.
6. Development of accessible software would require large investments of funding in research and development.
A sampling of responses is provided in Appendix A.

Discussion/Recommendations

While certainly not rigorous research, the results of this survey suggest the need for a comprehensive initiative to engage the instructional software industry in accessibility efforts. Provided this sampling of award-winning instructional technology producers is representative of the industry, efforts aimed at encouraging schools to buy accessible products will be ineffective if accessible products are not readily available to buy. The instructional software industry must begin producing sufficient numbers of accessible products to allow schools realistic options for choosing to buy accessible.

The two companies who did report existing accessibility work commented that their efforts were constricted due to the lack of nationally-agreed-upon accessibility standards for instructional software. These companies indicated that they are looking at Section 508 guidelines as well CAST and NCAM materials, but because there is no consensus on standards for instructional software, "it is indeed hard to decide where and how to begin." They also pointed out that instructional software may have unique accessibility issues related to usage by children of different ages that create specialized needs in accessibility standards (e.g., for children who are deaf and who do not yet read -- captioning does not make software accessible.)

A number of initiatives are recommended to address issues identified in this survey in the hope of increasing the accessibility of instructional software.

1. A set of nationally accepted accessibility standards for instructional software should be developed. Such standards are critical to provide both instructional software developers and buyers with clear expectations for what makes a product accessible. Standards development could be accomplished through a consensus approach similar to the development of standardized file formats for digital curricula materials as referenced in the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act of 2001. Current standards including the Section 508 software standards, NCAM and CAST guidelines would provide an base upon which such standards could be built. Standards or guidelines development could also be supported through federal grant awards.

2. Comprehensive training and technical assistance should be made available to the instructional software industry to support the use of accessibility standards. Until nationally accepted standards are available, such training and technical assistance should focus on and utilize those standards that are available and are clearly appropriate (e.g., Section 508 software standards, NCAM, and CAST standards.) While these standards in aggregate form may not be a desired end result, adherence to even parts of these standards would increase product accessibility. In the short term, a blue-ribbon instructional software accessibility group could be formed to review the existing standards and recommend an interim set of guidelines until a final version is available.

3. Comprehensive technical assistance to the instructional software industry should include ongoing data collection on the status of accessibility initiatives within the industry and identification of support needs. Best practices should be identified and shared for consideration by others to the extent possible without infringing on proprietary interests.

4. Comprehensive training and technical assistance should be made available to PK-12
schools to assist them in evaluating and purchasing accessible instructional technology. Justas the General Services Administration is developing review procedures to analyze prospective IT purchases for adherence to the Section 508 standards as part of overall purchasing decision making, schools and teachers should have available best-practice procedures to use in instructional technology purchasing decisions. This would infuse accessibility considerations with other instructional factors used in determining instructional software purchases. In addition, the instructional software industry might want to consider developing a product compliance template, similar to the one developed by the Information Technology Industry Association, for instructional technology producers to use to document product accessibility features.

Without a concentrated effort to develop access standards and promote the use of those standards in instructional technology development, schools and students with disabilities will continue to struggle to find instructional software that is accessible. The sooner the instructional technology industry becomes aware of and engaged in accessibility efforts, the more likely schools are to have accessible products available for purchase. It is hoped that adequate public and private resources can be devoted to this effort in the near future.

Appendix A: Sampling of Survey Responses

1. Unfortunately, at this time, our Research and Development has not focused
on accessibility by students with disabilities. We do not have any information about the compatibility of our products with add-on assistive technology.

2. I am sorry but at this time we do not have anything that is specifically developed to function with add-on accessibility devices.

3. We currently do not test our products with "add-on assistive technologies".

4. We have no specific information on these questions. Probably the best option for you would be to preview several programs and test them with assistive technologies.

5. We do not currently test for any kinds of assistive technology. At this time, our QA dept. is stretched to it's limits and is not in a position to broaden it's testing reach. This situation may change in the future but at this time it is beyond our means to do full QA testing for accessibility.

6. No, unfortunately none of our software has the option for add-on technology and does not have any type of built in access features. I am forwarding your email to our research and development along with other inquiries such as this. I hear more and more requests for captioning to be added to our early learning software line.

7. I'm not sure if it is accessible to adaptive technology, but I believe it isn't yet. I believe we have taken these considerations into account during development, but have not yet implemented them. We have been looking at partnering with an organization to jointly get grant funding to enable us to make it accessible.

8. We use Macromedia Flash 5 technology. While Flash 5 allows us to deliver content efficiently to the greatest number of users and in the most engaging and effective format possible, it does create some obstacles in terms of compatibility with all forms of adaptive technology. Since the capabilities of adaptive technology are evolving so quickly, staying current in this field can be challenging for such a specialized company. However, because adaptive technology is improving so quickly, it appears that the industry itself is likely to resolve these issues faster than we can on our own.

9. Many of the accessibility issues are handled by the hardware and software of the assistive device rather than by the instructional software. Because the accessibility technology is generally responsible for providing access rather than the program providing something, most of these tools will work. The bigger problem in our case would be things like "listen to this song." Obviously a deaf student couldn't gain the full benefit of that instruction. Captioning of audio is likely not to work because closed captioning is often just a display of text received from a source, which we don't currently have sending out to be received by a closed caption reader.

---