This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
ABBY OLSON: It is very nice to be with you all today. My name is Abby Olson I'm an attorney in the Disability Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. I'm joined by Logan Gerrity another attorney in the Disability Rights Section at the DOJ.
As you know the presentation is about the Department of Justice's rule on web and mobile app accessibility published in the ADA Title II, 2024 April last year. Some of you may have submitted comments on the rule.
Thank you for those.
Those were helpful. They made the rule better. And stronger. So really appreciate all of the public feedback.
As we'll get into the rule we're talking about today applies to public entities covered Title II, state and local governments doesn't apply to private businesses it is only a rule under title two of the ADA.
And our hope is that this rule will help to make sure everyone can access their state and local government's web sites and mobile apps regardless whether they have a disability, and we also hope that the rule will provide state and local governments with more clarity about how to provide accessible content and mobile apps we have slides for this presentation, which Logan will click through and we will also share all the information on the slides verbally throughout the presentation.
And we will save some time for questions at the end.
Ok.
So now we can go over the goals for the presentation.
First our hope is to help you get generally familiar with what the rule requires if you're not already familiar with it. So this is sort of like an introductory course. This presentation will help you learn about what the rule requires state and local governments to do and how the rules effect individuals with disabilities.
Second this presentation will not be comprehensive we want to give you some resources in case you have questions after the presentation is done. So our second goal is to give you a tool kit that you can consult if you have any questions in the future, um. And all the resources that we'll talk about are available on our web site, ADA.gov we'll provide some more specific information about that at the end of the presentation.
Also, just want to clarify what this presentation will not include we'll not be getting into in-depth the ins and outs of the technical standard that is applicable in this case.
As we'll talk about in a little bit which you may be familiar with the technical standard is called the web content web access I believe or WCAG 2.1, we'll not get into the ins and outs this will be a presentation about the legal requirements which content does or does not have to follow the technical standard. If you're interested in learning more about it, if you're not already the world wide could be sort yum, the group that publishes that standard has other resources that may help you better understand that standard.
And so just a quick road map for our presentation -- so we'll start by providing some back ground on the ADA which most of you may be familiar with.
Then we'll go over who has obligations under the rule, what those obligations are, when they go into effect.
Then we'll talk about exceptions to the rule and some other situations when state and local governments might have flexibility in how they go about complying with the rule.
And then finally as I mentioned we'll talk about some other additional resources you can consult on ADA.gov throughout the webinar we'll pause for knowledge checks which are just you know brief quiz questions to get you thinking, make sure you're understanding there's no pressure to get them right. It is sort of just to help the learning process.
All right so without further adieu let's dive into the material.
So just some brief background on the ADA state out and regulations I suspect most folks are familiar with it, just in case you're not. Obviously the ADA is Federal Civil Rights law, prohibits disability grim nation in every day activities broken in five different titles this is under Title II. That requires requirements for public entity including state and local governments, general rule is set forth at 42 US code 12132.
And the ADA statute and regulations have always made clear that state and local governments have to make sure that there are services programs and activities which we'll talk about as services for short.
They are accessible to people with disabilities. The department has consistently said these requirements apply to all services that a state or local government offers including those that are offered via the web and mobile apps.
But, until this rule, the Department of Justice had never issued a regulation specifying what technical requirements state and local governments had to meet to satisfy the obligations under Title II and for years members of the public have been asking the department to issue a rule on topic.
And so the rule is establishes specific requirements including adopting a specific technical standard make clear for state and local governments what they have to do, to make sure the web content and mobile apps comply with the ADA with that, let's dive into the requirements of the rule.
Um, so we'll first go over who has obligations under the rule, as I mentioned earlier the rule applies to public entities defined under title two, public entities include state and local governments any agencies or departments within the governments.
And examples of public entities include I'm sure we're all familiar, public schools and Universities, state and local law enforcement and courts, public hospitals and health care services, Parks & Recreation programs, public libraries and many others.
As we talk about the specific requirements in this presentation, the regulatory citations for the requirements will be noted on the slides and we'll also read those citations aloud, includes a citation, to 28 code of regulations or CFR, 35200. Let's talk about the content that this applies to. That a public entity provides or makes available, whether directly or through contractual licensing and other arrangements this includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.200 let's break down what that means exactly.
So the rule includes a technical definition of web content that is based on the definition in the technical standard we'll discuss shortly. You can check out in the rule itself.
But in simple terms web content means anything that is posted on the web, including web pages, images, sounds, videos, PDFs and other documents.
So you know if you think about functions a city or a County or state might offer on the web site like signing up for a weather emergency alerts filing a police report, paying bills applying for permit, making payments many others all those functions would generally have to comply with the technical standard in the rule.
And this slide includes a citation 20 C.F.R. 35.104. The rule applies to both content on the state or local government's own web site as well as the state or local government's web site, that is posted on the web that will include a public entities social media posts.
This slide includes a solution 28 C.F.R., 35.200. Ok. So the rule also applies to mobile apps, which we're all familiar software applications downloaded and designed to run on mobile devices, so think about mobile apps you might have used to access a public entities in the past like an apps to pay for parking or to submit a maintenance request.
A public entity would generally need to make sure that the apps it uses for those purposes meets technical standards this includes this on 35.104. As I mentioned the rule applies to web content and mobile app that's state local and governments provide and make available strictly or though contractual licensing or other arrangements.
So what does that mean? It means that the technical standard applies not only to web content and mobile apps that a state or local government creates or posts itself, but also, to web content and mobile apps are created or posted by someone else on behalf of that government.
So for example, if a city government hires a contractor to build the government's web site that web site generally still has to meet the technical standard.
And similarly, if a city government uses a mobile app that is created by a private company, to offer services to the public, city would generally have to make sure it picked an app that complied with the technical standard. This is the same as the rest of the Title II rule it is just explained in the context in the mobile apps, both before and after the rule, governments cannot avoid complying with the ADA by hiring someone else to do the work. This includes the citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.200. So now we'll have our first knowledge check.
Again, these are just to help check understanding make sure folks are following.
So after I read each question I'll pause to see if anyone wants to guess about the answer.
Ok.
(reading the question)
Which of the following are web content that generally need to meet the technical standard in the rule.
A PDF flier showing the recycling pick updates on the sanitation web site. B, a video posted on the town on the town's official social media page. And C, a web site to pay County property taxes online.
Or D, a city parks and recreation department, online system or E, all of the above.
>> All of the above! (laughter)
ABBY OLSON: Correct. That is most obvious I wanted to demonstrate the breadth of the functionalities that may be covered by this rule.
So because each of those are provided or made available by a state or local government they would be covered under the rule. We'll talk about later there might be specific times where an exception might apply to a particular piece of content.
But generally all those things we just talked about are web content would have to be accessible. This slide includes the citation to 28. C.F.R. PA104 and 35.200. So I talked about what types of content has to comply with the rule and which entities have to comply with the rule. I'll talk a little bit more what standard public entities will have to make sure their content meets. I eluded to under the rule public entities will need to make sure generally that the web content and mobile apps comply with the WCAG 2.1 level AA.
And as I mentioned, these guidelines were developed by the international organization called the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C, this includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.200. So WCAG is a bit like the ADA standards in the design of the physical access page just like the ADA standards for the design, specifies what makes a building accessible on the slide there's a diagram shown about the required width of a door under the ADA standards it says, that a hinged door has to be able to open to 90 degrees and be a certain width.
So the technical standard we're adopting in this space will let public entities know what they need too do, to make their web content and mobile apps accessibility specifically. So for anyone who is not familiar with WCAG it is broken down into success criteria which describes what has to be done to conform to the technical standard.
So success criterion is a box that a public entity has to check to make sure the content is accessible. Is classified level A or level AA or level AAA, this rule adopts level AA, which includes all the core level A criteria as well as the level AA criteria. I said at the beginning of the presentation this is a presentation about the ins and outs of WCAG I'll go through just two quick examples what it requires.
It will help you get the feel for the standard if you're in the familiar. We recognize these examples will be familiar to many of you we wanted to highlight them for anyone who is not already aware.
So one example is that WCAG 2.1 requires Alt text for visual images this shows the DOJ seal with one possible text alternative, U.S. Department of Justice seal.
And another example is that WCAG 2.1 has requirements for captioning. This slide shows a screen shot from an online video on DOJ's YouTube page with captions displayed on the screen. The captions appear at the bottom of the video and identify what the video's narrator is saying verbally. If you're not already familiar with it, there's a lot of resources on the W3C as web site to make you familiar. I will talk about when they need to meet the compliance.
The date on public entities have to comply depends on the size of the entity.
Public entities have population fewer than 50,000 will have to comply with the rule April 26, 2027. And the same goes for special district governments less common type of government that I won't get into here.
But that's discussed further in the rule.
And then, public entities have populations of 50,000 or more, will have to comply with the rule, by April 24, next year, 2026.
And smaller entities have an extra year to comply because we understand from public feedback that those entities have particular budget challenges. And this slide includes the citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.200. So you might be think --
>> Yes, is there a question?
>> I'm just curious, you know, we've been some of us have been suing governments for years, claiming that they weren't accessible and making them be accessible.
I'm just wondering whether or not this you know, deadline of 2026 or 2027 gives them the impression that they don't need to be accessible between now and then?
Or, if in fact, the -- you know, justice department's position is that this rule means that you know, there's this window where they don't have to be accessible --
ABBY OLSON: Good question. Thanks for asking it the department has the long standing understanding of the department is public entities have always under the ADA had to ensure the services programs activities including those offered via the web those obligations continue to exist, separate from and regardless of this rule.
And so, while the specific requirements and the technical standard and the you know the exceptions all the things set forth specifically in this resume don't go into effect until 2026 or 2027 those existing obligations are still in effect in the meantime.
Um --
>> Does the rule say that?
ABBY OLSON: It does. There's also been you know materials on ADA.gov we hope make that clear.
>> Thank you!
ABBY OLSON: Ok.
So um, you may be wondering how entity can go about figuring when it has to comply with the rule. It is a little bit complicated there's a whole section of the rule that lays that out. So you can take a look at that if you're interested you could also, our ADA information line if you wonder for a particular entity you can feel free to give them a call they can help you walk them through the basic principle is state and local government populations for this rule are based upon their populations as calculated by the Census bureau.
Public entities that don't have populations calculated lie libraries police departments things like that so, their population for purposes of this rule is determined by reference to the state or local government which they're affiliated.
A few more questions about that, we're happy to chat about that.
This slide includes the citation 20 C.F.R. 35.104. So this I think is getting at the question that you just asked -- um, so you know. The existing regulations make clear that public entities have existing obligations, in this space to ensure their services provided via the web are accessible.
So state and local governments have to make reasonable modifications, they need to ensure effective communication they need to provide equal opportunity to people with disabilities to participate in or benefit from government services that are offered online and through mobile apps.
So public entities still have to comply with the existing obligations.
Even before the specific obligations or the rule go into effect. And this slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.130b1ii and B7 and 35.160. So um, let's get into our next knowledge check.
So a County community college has 8,000 students but is part of a County has a population of 1 million.
Does the community college have to comply with the rule A by April 2026 or B by April 2027? Anyone want to venture a guess?
(pause for responses)
>> 2026?
ABBY OLSON: That's correct the community college has to comply by 2026 and so, um, the population of the community college for purposes of this rule is determined by the population of the County, that the community college is part of.
And because the relevant County has a population of 1 million over the 50,000 threshold it means it is a larger entity it has to comply before April 2026 the number of students enrolled is not develop in determining population in the rule. This includes citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.200.
Ok. So I think this will again get at the question you were asking.
One more knowledge check about compliance dates, County has a population of 5 million, County doesn't need to think of web accessibility until April 2026, true or false?
>> False.
>> False (laughter)
ABBY OLSON: That is false.
So as we talked about, while state and local governments don't have to comply with the specific parts of the rule until the compliance states want to emphasize the existing obligations under the ADA.
And, obviously of course you know, coming into compliance with WCAG can take time we've been encouraging state and local governments to think ahead to make sure they're fully in compliance by the compliance dates. This slide includes the citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.130b1ii and B7 and 35.160 I'll turn to Logan to talk about exceptions.
LOGAN GERRITY: I'm Logan. As Abby mentioned I'm also an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Department in the Disability Rights Section.
And it's just great to be here with you today and excited to present. So as we mentioned, state and local governments web content and mobile apps generally need to meet the technical standard is WCAG 2.1 level AA rule also says there's some situations where some times of content do not need to meet the technical standard at the outset we'll refer to these as exceptions in in the rule.
So the rule includes 5 specific exceptions. And the reason the rule includes these exceptions is that we wanted to make sure that state and local governments have flexibility to prioritize making the most important content like current or commonly used information, accessible to people with disabilities quickly. This slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.201.
But before discussion each of the exceptions, we again want to make clear what the exceptions don't change. So even if certain content does fall within the exception, doesn't need to meet WCAG 2.1 at the outset, public entities still need to comply with the existing standards under the ADA, that means if it is subject to an exception, public entities still need to make sure the services offered the web and mobile apps are accessible to people with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.
So this includes a citation to the long string of 28 C.F.R. 35.130b1ii and b7 and 35.160.
So the first exception in the rule is for what is called archived web content.
So the definition of archived web content has four different elements.
So in order to fall within this exception, the content at issue has to, one, have been created before the date the public entity must comply with the rule or it must reproduce paper documents or the contents of other physical media like audio tapes, film negatives and CD ROMS for example, that were created before a public entity must comply with the rule.
Second, the content must be kept only for reference, research or record keeping.
Third, the content must be kept in a special area specific for archived content like archived section on a public entities web site.
And fourth, it must not have been changed since it was archived.
So again in order to qualify for this exception, content has to meet all four of these elements.
This slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.104 and 35.201a.
So here's one example of the content that would qualify for the exception. Imagine an unedited water quality report from 1998 that a state has stored only for research purposes in an archive section of its web site.
So I'll walk through the four elements to kind of explain why this would qualify.
So first, it was created in 1998, which is before any public entity had to comply with the rule.
Second, is kept only for research purposes.
Third is September in a special area for archived web content.
And fourth, it has not been edited since it was archived.
So taken together all four elements are met this content would qualify for the exception.
But in contrast, here's an example of content that would not qualify for the exception, archived PDF document that includes up to date instructions for scheduling an event in a County park.
So the reason this would not qualify for the exception is because of the PDF provides current information about using the park. So the PDF is not kept only for reference research or record keeping.
So it doesn't qualify for the exception.
So let's do a knowledge check. I’ll do a knowledge check for each of the exceptions so I'm excited. (laughter) here's the first one.
County posts a manual on its web site that explains how people can request County services like filling in potholes and planting trees. The manual is posted in an archived section of the web site. The manual was originally created in 2000 periodically update the after it is posted does the manual fall within the archived web content any time exception.
A yes.
B no. Is it anyone want to volunteer and answer?
>> No.
>> No.
LOGAN GERRITY: Anyone want to say their reasoning.
>> It gets updated.
>> Periodically updated.
LOGAN GERRITY: Any other reasons.
>> It is currently relevant information.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yes. So in this case, the answer is B, no. The manual would not fall within the archived web content exception.
The manual is used first to explain how to request certain current county services, so it is used for something other than research reference or record keeping. The manual is periodically updated which means it has been changed since it was archived.
So even though it is placed in an archive section on the web site, it doesn't qualify for the exception.
This slide includes a citation to 28C.F.R. 35.104 and 35.201a.
The second exception is for pre-existing conventional electronic documents.
So in order to qualify for this exception, a document must meet 3 elements.
First, it must be what we call a conventional electronic document. So that term conventional electronic documents you may hear as CEDs, that's a new term that we defined in the rule.
And CEDs are limited to specific file types including PDFs, Word processor files presentation files and spread sheet files.
Other types of files would not qualify as CEDs.
The second element is that it must be pre-existing. So CEDs are covered by the exception if a public entity posted them before the date it has to comply with the rule. So again, either before April 2026 or before April 2027 depending upon the size of the government.
And third, the document must not currently be used to apply for or gain access to or participate in the public entity services.
So the exception is meant to cover old documents, that is not -- are not really used any more. So if the content is still used to access the public entity services, it does not qualify for the exception and slide includes a citation 28 C.F.R. pa.104 and 35.201b.
So one example of content that would qualify for this exception is imagine a PDF flier for a Veteran's Day parade post on the city's web site back in 2018. I'll walk through each of the elements for the document.
So first it is a PDF it is one of the covered file types.
Second, it has been available on the web site since 2018, which is before anyone had to comply with the rule.
And third, it is likely not used to apply for or access or participate in the public entities programs or activities because it is for a veteran's day parade that already happened. So this flier would be pre-existing conventional electronic document the town would not have to make the PDF meet WCAG 2.1.
In contrast here's an example of content that would not qualify for the exception. Think about a PDF version of a state's business license application that posted this year for the next ten years that is still the version that members of the public use to apply for that business license.
So going through the elements, while this is a PDF. And while it was put on the web site, before anyone had to comply with the rule. It would not qualify for the exception because it is not used only -- or because it is still, it would still be the version that is used to apply for the business license after the compliance dates arrive.
So here's the next knowledge check -- this one says, in 2030, a city updates a micro sword Word document first posted on its web site in 2020 to include the city's new contact information. Does that document qualify for the exception in 2030?
A yes.
B, no.
>> No.
>> No.
LOGAN GERRITY: Anyone want to explain their thoughts?
>> It is updated in 2030 is used in context, which is after the compliance date in 2030.
>> It's not a PDF file.
LOGAN GERRITY: This would be, this is a micro soft Word document it would qualify under that element of being a CED, CEDs are PDFs, Word files spread sheet files or presentation files.
But, you're right. It would not qualify for the exception because of the date in which it was updated. So this document it was changed after the date the city had to comply with the rule, so it would not qualify for exception.
And this slide includes a citation to 20 C.F.R. 35.104 and 35.201b.
So the third exception is for content posted by a third party.
In order to meet this exception, there are two elements.
First, the content at issue must be posted by a third party. And second, the third party cannot be posting due to contractual licensing or other arrangements with the public entity.
So in this context what we mean by third parties that does not include like vendors or other whose are acting on behalf of the public entity. By third party we mean people who are not truly acting for the public entity.
This includes a citation to 28 C.F.R., 35.201c.
So this exception would apply, for example, to documents filed by a third party lawyer on a state court's web site.
That's because the documents were posted by a lawyer who is a third party, and the lawyer is not posting due to contractual licensing or other arrangements with the state court.
But, it is important to note that the exception does not apply to the tools or the platforms that a public entity provides on the web site or mobile app.
Even if those tools are platforms are used by third parties. I see we have a question?
>> You need to bar license to post to a court web site. Like a -- docket entry?
LOGAN GERRITY: Yes.
>> So that's a contractual arrangement that you are only permitted to post documents if you are either licensed by the state or are associated with someone who is licensed with the state. So that seems like a loophole you've create that had is not actually a loophole. I would argue that lawyers have to start posting document that is are accessible to court dockets.
LOGAN GERRITY: That's a good point. Thanks for raising that I think the way the -- like the slide had envisioned it, it was more like the reason that the document was being posted. It was no contract, or license or other arrangement between the lawyer and the court so that was required --
>> I'm thinking as a lawyer. Like it would piss me off if all of the sudden my opposing counsel started posting scanned documents to the docket and told me to pound sand.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah I think what we would say is like kind of if you go back to what we talked about at the start of the existing obligations so even if an exception does apply to a content, there's still other existing obligations to make the content accessible on a case-by-case basis. So it would be the court would still have an obligation to make the content accessible on a case-by-case basis to someone who requests it.
>> I understand.
But I'm saying, it is very annoying if you have to request every time you encounter a document that the court make it accessible, especially given the timing issues that come up I would argue, that you know. If it is a -- certainly if it's an attorney, third party attorney posting to a blog where you know commenting on public things, where it doesn't matter if they're an attorney fine.
If we're talking about posting documents to a court web site they have a contractual arrangement with the state that only lawyers that are licensed by the state or associated with the lawyers licensed by the state are allowed to post documents to the court web site I think you should change that slide because that I think is not right (laughter)
LOGAN GERRITY: I appreciate your feedback. Um, we'll definitely take into account your feedback is really helpful so thank you.
So in the example we were just talking about in the lawyer posting on the state court web site, if the state court has a system on which people can file documents, the system itself still has to meet the technical standard even if the materials file by third parties on the system don't meet the technical standard.
And the reason for that is because, ah, the system itself is not posted by the third party even though third parties may use that system. So that's the distinction between the system itself and the content that is posted on the system.
So we have a knowledge check for this exception.
True or false -- a public University uses a private company to design, manage and update its web site. The content the private company posts for the University is covered by the exception for content posted by third parties.
Again true or false.
>> False.
>> False, I would say.
LOGAN GERRITY: Anyone want to explain their thoughts?
>> They have a contract.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah exactly. So in this case, the answer is false. The company is posting due to contractual licensing or other arrangements with the public University.
So the public University cannot avoid its obligation under the rule by having a private company post its own content. The content any time the company posts for the government would therefore not fall under the exception, it would generally need to meet WCAG 2.1 level AA, this includes a citation to 28 C.F.R., 35.201c.
>> I have a question, you happen to have another example of this particular exception because, just having a really hard time trying to think conceptually where this could actually come up? You know I can't imagine a web site by a state or local government being open enough that a third party could just post on it, without having some kind of formal arrangement to have that kind of open access to a state or local government, official web site.
>> I have an example. So in New York City, there's proposed rules and people can post public comments on the proposed rules. I would imagine that someone posting inaccessible PDF that would not violate this, but if someone asked the city for a copy, the city would have to try to maybe the city would have to try to get a copy, maybe from the person or. Or -- otherwise, create an accessible copy of it I don't know.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah I believe one other example provided in the appendix to the final rule I believe it talks about message boards that a city might put on its web site like a comment board where people can post thing like that. I have to go back and read the appendix to get the specific content of it, I believe that's one second example.
>> This is Howard.
Go ahead.
>> I have an add on to my question.
What about a city or local government's social media page where someone can post say an inaccessible image on that page. This doesn't apply.
LOGAN GERRITY: In this context are you talking about the post the city makes or like a reply from someone else --
>> Reply.
LOGAN GERRITY: Reply, it would -- all these answers are kind of fact specific, whether something would or would not apply is always going to depend upon the specific facts but that could be an example where somebody is posting on the city's content and it is not due to contractual licensing or arrangements with the city.
>> Ok.
>> This is Howard.
I just want to reinforce what Adam was saying about the filing of the by lawyers so again this is a third party.
But at the same time, if you look at the picture -- PACE is the Federal application system, every lawyer that files there is required to basically check a box that says I agree to follow the rules and to adjudicate and to redact any names before I can file.
At the risk of being sanctioned for filing something that is not compliant.
So I think, that should be some form of a rule by recognition potentially recognized by the courts that they do require those third parties who are filing public documents or even filing court documents like what he was saying -- it is required that they follow the court's standards.
So I don't think we should allow the person who has the third party to say that when the court has a lot of that kind of documents being filed.
>> Third party should not be off the hook. Thank you.
>> Thank you Howard.
>> I have something.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah.
>> I think -- I agree the lawyers example is a good example. I have struggled with that a lot. People file documents are not accessible, with screen readers I feel like the language is borrowed from these kind of intermediary liability clauses stuff like that on the government's rules that exist right now. I feel like this is too broad like you're not talking about meta social media platform we're talking about the governments or even in courts there should be more responsibility.
Yeah I think the exception is kind of too broad.
>> Does the liability if a third contractual licensing or arrangement with Title II entity is the liability on the contractor/licensee or is the liability on the public entity?
LOGAN GERRITY: Under this rule, this rule only applies to public entities.
>> I see.
LOGAN GERRITY: It would cover the public entities responsibility. Is there another question in the back?
Ok.
ABBY OLSON: We appreciate all the helpful feedback. I would say the part of this in the regulatory text is the exception but the specific example is not in the regulatory text we can take a look at the slide and appreciate the helpful feedback.
>> I suppose the third party could be liable for the provisions under 42 US 12203b, retaliation and interference provisions in theory I suppose the lawyer who posts inaccessible PDF to the court docket could be responsible for interfering with your right to be free from inaccessible stuff on the court web site.
LOGAN GERRITY: Again, this is really good feedback we'll definitely take this back. I do -- one thing I would, this particular example is like something you want to dive into more as well. I do believe the example comes up in the appendix to the rule.
So I definitely encourage you to take a look at the appendix to kind of see if, what you think about the text there and definitely provide feedback if you want to give additional feedback about this you can always call or ADA information line and kind of share what you're thinking and what your feeling about the information in the information in the appendix that information is really helpful.
That information comes back to us when we get it, we interpret it, we look at it we think through very deeply. We appreciate the feedback and encourage you to continue to give us good feedback it is really helpful for us. I'll move to the fourth exception to the rule. This is for individualized password protected documents.
So in order to qualify for this exception, there are 3 elements that a document would have to meet.
Again, this document uses that term CED or conventional electronic documents. So the first element is the document must be a conventional electronic document which is Word processor files, presentation files, PDFs and spread sheet files.
Second the document must be about a specific person, property or account.
And third the document must be password-protected or otherwise secured.
And this slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.104 and 35.201d.
>> Question --
>> Does the document itself have to be password protected or secured or does it simply have to be something that you have to enter a secure web site to access?
LOGAN GERRITY: It would be more the ladder so like if you had to login --
>> For instance Seattle city lights doesn't have to make my bill accessible?
LOGAN GERRITY: Depends, is it behind the password protected.
>> You have to login and get to your bill you have to log into your light account in order to get to your bill and you're telling me that under this rule, even though that PDF if self of my bill is not secured, it is not password protected the fact I have to go into a secure web site in order to download the unsecured PDF, they don't have to make the PDF accessible?
LOGAN GERRITY: So it depends on the specific facts but, um it is potential that it would qualify for the exception --
>> Well, that sucks.
ABBY OLSON: There's some language in the appendix is helpful about the scope of the existing obligations in this space.
And that effectively, you know public entities already have obligations to make those sorts of documents accessible as needed. And there's -- some language in the appendix about not having recurrent requests things like that.
So encourage you to take a look at that section if you're interested.
>> There's an exception but it is not really an exception because they have to do it any way, but not -- with the technical standard?
ABBY OLSON: The exception generally means that, sort of the content you know does it across the board have to comply with the technical standard in every case automatically as would be the case otherwise. So the exception is just saying at the outset. The content doesn't need to be made accessible the existing obligations may kick in, such in an individual case they have an obligation to make a particular document accessible in a recurrent basis.
>> I guarantee we'll have to litigate it, they are going to say they don't have to do it.
ABBY OLSON: I appreciate the feedback. Yes.
LOGAN GERRITY: This slide includes an example of content that would qualify for the exception.
Imagine a PDF version of a person's water bill in that person's password protected account on the city's web site. So applying the 3 elements to this document, this is a conventional electronic document it is a PDF.
It is about a specific person's account.
And it is on a password-protected web site. So the PDF would generally not need to meet the technical standard.
But again, um, public entities still have other obligations under the ADA outside of this rule. So even if a particular document like the water bill in this example falls under the exception to the technical standard, if a person with a disability needs access to the information in that document, the public entity would still generally have to provide that information in a format that is accessible to that person. This slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.130b1ii.
And b7, and 35.160.
But even though the individual PDF water bill would fall within the exception, the portal where the water bill is hosted does not fall under the exception that still has to meet the technical standard.
That is because the portal is not a conventional electronic document, so it is HTML web site. And the portal itself is not about a specific person, property or account.
So we have a knowledge check for this exception.
>> Question --
>> So with that exception to the exception on many entities have a portal, from which you can enter information, and it is -- you know like I know this is a private entity like my bank account for example I can obtain my statement through a portal, which is electronic they also provide that in a PDF. Would the PDF be still subject to the exception or would it be removed from that exception because the same information is available on the portal.
LOGAN GERRITY: So in terms of the exception, it could apply to the PDF document but in terms of that --
>> Not the portal --
LOGAN GERRITY: In terms of the HTML if it is provided in HTML format it would not be a CDE it would not qualify.
>> Ok.
LOGAN GERRITY: So here's the check for this exception. A water company posts a PDF document on a password protected westbound site about an upcoming rate increase for all customers.
This PDF document is covered by the exception true or false?
>> False.
>> False.
LOGAN GERRITY: Someone want to explain their thinking.
>> It's not an individual.
LOGAN GERRITY: That's right the answer here, would be false. This document is not about a specific person, property or account but it is applicable to all customers.
>> Sorry I have another question.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yep.
>> You are giving me the floor I wonder did you say a moment ago that the portal doesn't have to be accessible or the portal doesn't have to be accessible under the exception?
LOGAN GERRITY: The portal would not be covered by the exception.
>> Ok.
>> The portal has to be accessible.
>> I didn't hear that nuance I was concerned he had just said that the portal simply does not have to be accessible, that gave me pause. Thank you.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah. No thanks for your question, sorry if I wasn't clear.
So the fifth and final exception is for social media posts. So public entities generally need to make sure the social media posts comply, the public entity is not responsible for making sure the whole social media platform is accessible.
Entity has to generally make sure when it posts on social media its own posts are accessible.
There is an exception for social media posts that were posted before the date a state or local government has to comply with the rule. This slide includes a section 28 C.F.R. 201d for small public entities or special district governments this apply to social media posted before April 2027.
And for large public entities the exception would apply to social media posts that were posted before April 2026.
This slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.20 and 35.201e.
So if, for example, a city had posted on social media back in 2010, about winter parking restrictions in January and February of 2010, that post would qualify for the exception. That is because the post was posted before anyone had to comply to the rule in 2010 the city would not have to go back and make that post meet the technical standard.
But in comparison if a city, if a city posted in 2030 about winter parking restrictions, that would not qualify for the exception.
That is because it is made after the date all public entities have to comply with the rule.
>> Can I ask a question.
LOGAN GERRITY: Uh-huh.
>> Is there any specification of what social media is or what platforms this applies to? Is it just generally any public forum that the state or local government is using because, social media he is evolving so -- just curious about that?
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah that's a good question. So there's no specific definition of social media in the definition section of the rule.
But, there is some analysis in the appendix to the rule, kind of discussing different social media platforms.
I don't have that on ready right now but definitely in the appendix I would encourage to you take a look at that.
>> Question.
LOGAN GERRITY: Uh-huh.
>> If a state Attorney General used the Twitter account, now X -- if they had their own X accounts they posted social media in 2030 on the account, it would be covered?
LOGAN GERRITY: So -- the situation is, it is the AG's personal account?
>> AG's official account. Not personal but -- they post like updates about the office, or about the you know about the settlements stuff like that.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah from what you're describing, again everything would depend upon the facts what you're describing it sounds like it is the official social media posts of the AG's office. It would be covered.
>> Yes. Ok.
ABBY OLSON: Covered it would have to be accessible, yes.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah. Sorry. (laughter)
>> Exception covers legacy social media correct?
LOGAN GERRITY: Pre-existing social media posts. So we have one last knowledge check.
Imagine a city makes a social media post in October 2026 asking residents to send in pictures of their pets in Halloween costumes. Is that post covered by the exception for pre-existing social media posts?
A yes. B no or C, it depends?
Does anyone --
>> You said city using a city.
>> LOGAN GERRITY: I can read it. City makes a social media post in October 2026 asking residents to send in pictures of their pets in Halloween costumes.
Is that post covered by the exception for pre-existing social media posts? A yes, B, no. Or C it depends?
>> How big is the city?
>> Depends yeah.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yeah this is our trickiest question, you got it exactly right.
>> I have a clarifying question.
LOGAN GERRITY: Yes.
>> Um is this just solicitation for people to send in their pictures.
So the pictures are not actually getting posted as part --
LOGAN GERRITY: It would be just the post the city made please send in your pictures.
>> Ok.
>> Pictures would not have alt text for example.
LOGAN GERRITY: Pictures posted it depends what the city does with them I guess they're asking them to send the pictures to the city.
It doesn't talk about what happens to the picture after they're sent to the city. Ok. So as everyone correctly analyzed, the answer is C. It depends.
The exception applies to social media posts before the compliance date, which depends on population size.
So the answer to the question would vary depending upon the size of the public entity if it were a small city less than 50,000 people, which has to comply with the rules starting April 2027, a post from October 2026 is before that date. So the post is therefore pre-existing and it would not have to meet WCAG 2.1 under the rule. Comparison a large city with 50,000 or more people have to comply with the rules starting April 2026, post in October 2026 is after that date.
And the post would therefore not be pre-existing.
And it would generally have to meet WCAG 2.1, this slide includes a 28 C.F.R. 35.200 and 35.201e I'll turn it over to Abby to finish out our presentation today.
ABBY OLSON: All right.
So I'll close us out by talking about some of the other miscellaneous provisions in the rule. One part of the rule talks about what is called conforming alternate versions you may be familiar with these, sometimes you know public entity tries to have two versions of the same content. One that is not accessible and one version that is accessible and provides all the same information and features.
The second version is sometimes called a conforming alternate version.
Conforming alternate versions are allowed in two limits situations under the rule. So there has to be either a technical limitation or a legal limitation that prevents the public entity from making the content directly access I believing.
If you're already familiar with WCAG you might notice this is a little bit different. So under WCAG conforming alternate versions are always allowed. Our rule only allows them in this specific, when there's a technical or legal limitation that prevents the content being made directly accessible.
Rule explains why we took this approach but in short we were concerned the use of conforming alternate versions could result in segregated access for individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent how the ADA's course princes of integration and inclusion have been interpreted. This includes a citation 28 C.F.R. 35.202, whether there is a technical or legal limitation depends upon the facts we'll run through a few examples to help illustrate when there may or may not be a technical or legal limitation.
So here's one example that might qualify as a technical limitation depending upon the facts. If a state publishes web content that uses an immersive, that may qualify as a technical qual. Here's are two examples if a town's web developer does not have the knowledge or training that is not a technical limitation they cannot use that to provide the conforming alternate location.
If a city general counsel did not approve contracts in time with a web developer as an accessibility experience that doesn't count.
So let's go through knowledge check -- a town decides for purely aesthetic reasons it would rather not make any changes to the main web site to conform to WCAG 2.1 instead the town would like to make a separate version that is accessibility. Does the rule allow the town to conform to this A yes or B no?
>> No.
ABBY OLSON: Correct the answer is no. Want to go keep your content the same for purely aesthetic reasons would not qualify for a technical or legal limitation under the rule. This slide includes the citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.202.
The rule also includes a provision on equivalent facilitation and so under the provision public entity can use designs methods or techniques as alternatives to WCAG 2.1, level AA so long as those alternative designs methods result in a generally equivalent or greater usability of the web content or mobile app. If then at this time wanted to use it, WCAG 2.0, that provides a higher level of accessibility that would be allowed under the rule. This includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.203.
So let's do a knowledge check -- um, a public University complies with the WCAG 2.0, anyone not familiar is earlier version with 12 fewer success criteria, as 2.1, does that count as equivalent facilitation under the rule.
I see folks shaking their heads the ambassador is no. This does not count as equivalent facilitation reservation. It has 12 more success criteria than 2.0, 2.1 sets a higher standard, so 2.0 does not provide substantially equivalent or greater accessibility than 2.1, it would not count as equivalent facilitation. This includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.203.
And the rule also says that public entities don't have to take actions that would result in fundamental alteration of service or activity or undue burden. These terms are familiar to you. They're model on the existing undue burden son, alteration limitations that exist in the Title II Reg figuring out what is an undue burden and fundamental alteration, differs from entities, sometimes differs from one year to the next.
In general, our view is it will not be a fundamental alteration for a state or local government to make the web content and mobile apps accessible. And, of course, even in complying with some parts of the 2.1 for some pieces of content would lead to an undue burden or fundamental alteration, entity is not totally off the hook they have to do everything that is not an undue burden or fundamental alteration to make sure people have as much access as possible. This includes citation 28 C.F.R. 35.204. The final provision.
Ok. So the rule also says that in limited circumstances a public entity can be considered in compliance with the rule even though the public entity's web tent or mobile app does not perfectly conform to WCAG 2.1 level AA, if the public can demonstrate that it does not have limited compliance on access. Part of the web content or mobile app does not meet 2.1 level AA. The difference is so small it would not change a person with a disability's access to the content or app.
So in those very limited situations, a state or local government can be considered in compliance with the rule, even though their technically not meeting all the content levels, 2.1, level AA, we have made it clear state and local governments are not allowed to avoid meeting the 2.1 level AA in the first place this is one way that a government can show that it still meets the rule even if someone finds a minor violation on WCAG on the government's content on mobile app. To use this part. rule the state or local government would have to prove the deviation from 2.1, level AA has a minimal impact on access.
This slide includes 28 C.F.R. 35.205.
>> Question here. Howard here. In this scenario, this is Howard speaking from deaf equality.
Prosecute public entity shows they have failed to comply with WCAQ 2.1 level A, they have shown it has minimal impact on access, are they now required to update the site to make sure it is in compliance after they discover the discovery they're not in compliance or, is that minimal impact to access to exempt them forever to improving and complying with WCAG 2.1.
ABBY OLSON: Good question. There's nothing in the regulatory text of this provision that sets a particular time limit.
But I think you know, the -- it really does apply to things that have a minimal impact on access, anything that provided you know any degree of significance of impact on access, you know that -- the entity would not be in compliance with the rule.
So there's nothing that sort of specifies a particular time frame for modifying you know, minor technical violations does not result in any impact on access.
But anything that you know, results in an actual impact on access would not qualify for this provision in the first place.
>> I guess what I'm really asking is that this seems to excuse any prior failures to, prior violations to WCAG 2.1 AA so if they are aware there are previous violations why would they not fix it to be in compliance now?
ABBY OLSON: I think this provision does not change the over arching obligation that public entities need to make sure but their web content and mobile apps conform to WCAG 2.1 level AA, we're not envisioning this as something a public entities can say I have these minor violations we can ignore them, this is a back stop the public entity has put in the effort to make the content accessible to comply with the rule there's an area where they fall short there's you know, a minor error does not have any impacted on access this would not mean they're out of conformance of the rule because of that minor deviation.
Thank you for the question.
>> I understand that, but I'm still not understanding why they would not be compelled I suppose to be in full compliance if they know they're not in compliance.
ABBY OLSON: It is a good question I think that the text of this limitation is really very narrow and so, you know entity would really be taking a risk by just saying I'm not going make changes to my web site and I'll be able to fall back on this provision, because the entity would have to prove each error technical violation had no impact on access so you know that burden would be on the entity to prove that.
So I think the hope that it would be sort a back stop where there is no impact observe access it is not sort of opening gaping hole in compliance more broadly.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I'm still -- not really understanding the reasoning for not saying that moving forward, entities must comply or update you know their web sites but I appreciate your answer.
ABBY OLSON: Thanks for the feedback.
Any other questions. Ok.
So ah, the rule includes specific information about what it means for a deviation from WCAG 2.1 to have a minimal impact on access. It means two things first, people with disabilities can still do the same things as people without disabilities using the web content and mobile apps like access the same information, conduct the same transactions etc. and then second people with disabilities can still do those things in the same way with substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy independence and ease of use, let's get into some examples.
So first say that someone reports to a County government that the web site violated one of the WCAG success criteria which requires the spacing between words to be 0.16 times the font size in response the County shows that the spacing is only 0.15 times the font size instead of 0.16 the County also shows that this difference in spacing is so small, that people with vision disabilities can still read the information on that web page just as easily.
In that situation, the County would not be in violation of the rule.
Let's talk about another example -- so imagine someone has a manual dexterity disability is trying to renew their professional license on a state's web site.
They come across a part of the online renewal form that requires dragging and dropping the file, there's no other way to upload the file which is in violation of one of the WCAG success criteria, the person had to try multiple times to drag and drop the file because of their disability, they were eventually able to upload the file and renew their license it took twice as long as it did for a co-worker without that disability. Even though the person was eventually able to renew their license online the state still violated the rule under those circumstances. This slide includes a citation to 28 C.F.R. 35.205.
So let's do one final knowledge check.
A person who is blind is trying to fill out a form on the public entity's web site. The form is missing labels for a screen reader to announce in violation of the WCAG 2.1 level AA, because of this, the person cannot complete the form on their own. The person calls the public entity after the person waits on hold for an hour, the public entity is reading it. The person is able to submit the form, is public entity is in compliance with the rule a yes or B.
>> No.
ABBY OLSON: Correct the public is not in compliance with the rule. So again, this provision is meant to address situations where there's a violation of WCAG 2.1 only a minimal impact on access, this example involved a violation on major access, the person had to ask for the help on the form, they had to complete the form over the phone even though a person who did not have that disability could have completed the form by themselves online.
So even though the person was able to complete the form, they weren't able to complete it with the same level of timeliness privacy and independence or ease of use the public entity could not use this to claim them in compliance with the rule. This slides includes a citation 28 C.F.R. 35.205.
So this was a lot of information, you may not remember all of this.
Our hope is that your exploration of the rule will continue after the webinar, we want to remind you there are resources available, if you're interested in learning more, so all of the resources that I am about to mention are available on ADA.gov, we have a fact sheet that gives overview of the requirements of the rule, we also have a small entity compliance guide which is geared specifically towards people who work for or with state or local governments, and provides additional tips for how governments may comply with the rule we have a resource that includes suggested action step that's ADA coordinator and others working with state and local governments might want to take as they prepare to comply with the rule. And there's a lot of other resources available on ADA.gov including the full rule.
And the department also operates ADA information line the members of the public can call if they have questions, calls to the information line are confidential and, the information line can be reached at 800-514-0301 for voice. And 1-823-610-1264 for TTY the hours can be found on ADA.gov. We hope this presentation has been helpful in giving you an overview of the rule and, folks rights under the rule, now I'm supposed to read a little disclaim her about this presentation.
Which says the contents of the presentation. Do not have the force to effect of the law the presentation is intended to only provide clarity to the public regarding the existing requirements under the law. Thank you so much for this presentation.
(applause)
>> We really appreciate all the very helpful feedback. This has been a process and in terms of finalizing the rule and getting public feedback that's been extraordinarily helpful, thus far I really appreciate the additional feedback today thank you all.
We're happy to take additional questions. Yes.
>> So can you give a quick overview maybe I missed it of, how this current regulation other than all of the exceptions and what you just went through, differs from the, the original?
ABBY OLSON: So the existing Title II rule, prior to this rule does not include any technical standards.
You know it generally said that public entities need to make sure the services programs and activities are accessible.
And, you know required reasonable modifications effective communication, etc., but there was no specific technical standard. So what this rule does, it sets a specific technical standard and specific time frame in which public entities need to comply with the standard.
So really what I need to do is go look at WCAG 2.0
ABBY OLSON: 2.1 level AA is the standard if you want to learn about the technical standard that's where you go. That's on the World Wide Web Consortium they have a lot more information on that.
>> Thank you. Had.
ABBY OLSON: Thank you.
>> Yes. What is happening with the Civil Rights section these days (laughter)
ABBY OLSON: (laughter)
>> By the way it is off the record (laughter)
>> Yes.
ABBY OLSON: Great question you know, we're only authorized to speak about the scope of this particular rule unfortunately during this presentation but we appreciate the question and, we're hanging there!
>> Hang in there.
ABBY OLSON: Yeah.
>> Is this rule that question is about the rule, so you should answer it (laughter)
ABBY OLSON: That's a good question.
Um, you know, I -- the only thing we can say about any you know, future regulatory efforts what's been announced in the unified agenda for the regulatory actions so you know if you want to learn about the department's plans the unified agenda is published twice a year, but, can't speak to anything sort of specific about any future plans.
(pause)
>> I think we're covered right?
ABBY OLSON: We appreciate all the questions and feedback.