Accessibility of Government Information Online (US0054)

Developing and adopting accessible, universally-designed programs and websites is critical to making sure every
American has access to public services. Additionally, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that people with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by
people without disabilities. The U.S. Access Board promulgates the Section 508 standards that specify what is required by Section 508 for websites. To increase accessibility of government information online, the United States will:

For details of these commitments, see the report: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/united-states-mid-term-report-2015-2017/

Commitment 2. Increase Accessibility of Government Information Online

Commitment Text:

Increase Accessibility of Government Information Online

Developing and adopting accessible, universally-designed programs and websites is critical to making sure every American has access to public services. Additionally, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that people with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by people without disabilities. The U.S. Access Board promulgates the Section 508 standards that specify what is required by Section 508 for websites. To increase accessibility of government information online, the United States will:

• Implement and Improve Upon the U.S. Web Design Standards. In September 2015, the U.S. Digital Service [16] launched a set of design patterns and tools as best practices to improve design of the hundreds of websites across dozens of agencies to provide consistent, visually appealing, and easy-to-use government websites that are compliant with Federal disability access requirements. Focusing on the user experience, the U.S. Digital Service worked with an interagency team to create a common visual style that is applicable across a broad range of government platforms. The team will use open platforms to work to improve upon the design standards, making regular releases in the coming months.
• Review and Report Accessibility Compliance of Federal Websites. By creating and implementing software code that can assist in evaluating the accessibility of websites across the government, the United States will increase the government’s ability to assess accessibility of Federal information for citizen consumers and Federal workers with disabilities. The General Services Administration will expand the transparent reporting platform pulse.cio.gov to measure performance of all Federal web domains against web policy requirements and industry best practices, while connecting domain owners to information and resources to better ensure that their sites comply with the requirements of Section 508.
• Develop Limited-English-Proficiency Policies and Programs. The United States will ensure that public- facing programs and activities, including recipients of Federal financial assistance through the General Services Administration, have policies and practices in place to provide meaningful access to limited- English-proficient individuals. The General Services Administration will conduct outreach and training efforts with its employees and recipients of Federal assistance to inform these policies and programs.

Responsible Institution: General Services Administration

Supporting Institutions: All Federal Agencies, members of the public

Start Date: Not Specified ....... End Date: Not Specified

Commitment Aim

This commitment aimed to make government websites more accessible for individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency. With respect to the former, the commitment aimed to make government websites compliant with Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [17] That law requires equal access to comparable information for individuals with and without disabilities. The commitment aimed more specifically to:

• Improve upon the US Web Design Standards [18]—renamed the US Web Design System in January 2018—a set of user-centered design standards and tools for government websites;
• Expand the pulse.cio.gov reporting platform to measure federal websites’ compliance with “policy requirements and industry best practices,” including Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act; and
• Ensure that public-facing government programs and activities have policies and practices that facilitate equal access by individuals with limited English proficiency.

Status

Midterm: Limited

As described in the progress report, the government had made limited progress on this commitment at the midterm. With respect to the US Web Design System, the government released a series of eight updates through June 2016. However, it had not yet released the first official version of the standards (i.e., version 1.0.0). [19] Regarding pulse.cio.gov, at midterm, the platform reported only the number of federal domains that use HTTPS and participate in the Digital Analytics Program. It did not report any information on federal website compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Lastly, while the General Services Administration purportedly released a limited-English-proficiency action plan prior to the midterm, [20] the plan was not publicly available.

End of Term: Limited

The General Services Administration (GSA) released the first major version (version 1.0) of the US Web Design System (then known as the US Web Design Standards) on 23 February 2017. ^[21] Between then and the end of the reporting period in June 2017, GSA released seven updates on roughly a monthly basis. By the end of April 2018, there were 16 releases in all since the release of version 1.0, and releases are now biweekly. [22] The updates addressed bug fixes and incorporated additional technical features, as described on its website. ^[23] This milestone is therefore complete. The public can follow the work of the interagency team that is responsible for this system via a detailed roadmap. [24]

By contrast, the government has not incorporated additional website accessibility metrics into the pulse.cio.gov reporting platform relative to the midterm. [25] According to GSA:

“The Pulse accessibility program will use an open source technology to scan .gov domains against accessibility standards consistent with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This effort will identify a subset of potential accessibility errors and display accompanying recommendations. This tool is intended to be used in conjunction with manual inspection and will not be a replacement for full accessibility assessments. GSA is working with the Chief Information Officers Council Accessibility Community of Practice, agency coordinators and web developers to devise a deployment strategy for agencies.” [26]

However, this program was not yet operational by the end of the action plan.

As for the development of limited-English-proficiency policies, GSA’s limited-English-proficiency action plan remains unavailable. According to GSA, it has developed a plan that consists of three pillars:

• The development and deployment of an agency-wide language translation services contract and procedures;
• Targeted outreach and education for recipients of Federal Financial Assistance; and
• Meaningful LEP [limited-English-proficiency] access for GSA’s public-facing programs and in Federal buildings and locations under GSA custody and control. [27]

According to GSA, it has completed the first pillar whereas the second and third pillars are underway. [28] However, according to a federal interagency website on issues related to limited English proficiency—which was last updated on 30 March 2018—the GSA limited-English-proficiency action plan is “pending”. [29] Given that the plan is not yet publicly available, completion is limited. Given the lack of concrete results for two of the three milestones, the commitment’s overall completion is also limited.

Did It Open Government?

Access to Information: Marginal

The opening of government resulting from this commitment regarding access to information is linked entirely to the US Web Design System (USDWS), since the government did not make tangible progress on the two other milestones.

The USDWS Team reports that, by the end of the action plan in June 2017, roughly 142 million users—of which roughly 122 million were new users—visited government websites that use the system (via code and/or design). [30] By the end of March 2018, these numbers increased to roughly 179 million total users, of which roughly 155 million were new users. [31] Moreover, by the end of April 2018, 138 government websites and applications utilized the system. [32]

According to data from the Digital Analytics Program, the executive branch alone has more than 4,500 websites. [33] The number highlights the relatively small percentage of federal websites (approximately 2.8 percent) that currently employ the system. Among those sites that do employ it, it is unclear whether their implementation facilitated an increase in traffic.

Moreover, while the General Services Administration (GSA), using extensive user research, designed the system to be user friendly, the extent to which the system has directly improved access to information remains unclear. A series of interviews that GSA conducted with government agencies that employ the system speaks to this issue. For example, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) emphasized the importance of having “a ‘common look and feel’ for all CBP digital products” to help provide a more unified user experience. But the agency gives little indication of how the public has benefited from the visually unified sites. [34] The Lab in the Office of Personnel Management similarly notes that “the Standards . . . helped act as a catalyst for bringing along some user centered design thinking” for the USAJOBS website. [35] However, it does not clearly describe any positive impact on access to information. [36]

The most concrete example linking the system’s implementation to an improvement in access to information comes from an interview with Vets.gov. The interviewee described how users were initially confused by the site’s use of an asterisk to denote required fields on a web form. The system’s alternative indicator for required fields caused less confusion among users. [37] This example is nevertheless an isolated one and is limited in scope.

Two agencies explicitly linked their decision to implement the system to the Rehabilitation Act to better serve people with disabilities. These agencies include GSA’s Code.gov (the home of federal source code) and the Department of Agriculture. Olivier Kamanda, project manager for Code.gov, noted that “using the Standards we didn’t have to worry about ADA compliance, since those best practices are built into the package.” [38] The Department of Agriculture similarly noted that “we had some questions around 508 accessibility compliance, on how agencies can adhere to the accessibility guidelines when applying the Standards, and we were able to work quickly to ensure these needs were met, as well.” [39]

These isolated examples provide little indication of the extent to which similar concerns fueled the system’s adoption across the 138 government websites and applications that employ them. The examples also do not demonstrate measurable improvements in access to information. The IRM researcher therefore assesses this milestone to have marginally opened government.

Carried Forward?

As of early 2018, the US government had not yet published a fourth action plan. The government should aim to continue to make progress on improving the accessibility of government information for people with disabilities and limited English proficiency. The government could also consider building upon the activities carried out relating to the standards. In these efforts, it could broaden the standards’ adoption to include a larger percentage of government websites.

[16] During the pre-publication review of this report, GSA indicated that both the U.S. Digital Service and 18F launched this system. The commitment text above, however, was copied directly from the action plan and was therefore not revised. Comments received via e-mail on 30 April 2018.

[17] For more detailed information on Section 508, see US General Services Administration, “Section 508 Law and Related Laws and Policies,” Section508.gov, https://www.section508.gov/content/learn/laws-and-policies, consulted 2 October 2017.

[18] US General Services Administration and 18F, “U.S. Web Design Standards,” US Web Design System, https://standards.usa.gov/, consulted 2 October 2017.

[19] US General Services Administration and 18F. “Release Notes,” US Web Design System, 23 February 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/releases/, consulted 2 October 2017.

[20] United States of America, Midterm Self-Assessment Report for the Open Government Partnership: Third Open Government National Action Plan, 2015-2017, September 2016, 5, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/USA_NAP3_self-assessment-report_20160916.pdf, consulted 2 October 2017.

[21] US General Services Administration and 18F, “Release Notes: Version 1.0.0,” US Web Design System, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/releases/#version-1-0-0, consulted 6 September 2017.

[22] The IRM received this information from GSA during the pre-publication review of this report. The comment was received via e-mail on 30 April 2018.

[23] US General Services Administration and 18F, “Release Notes,” US Web Design System, 23 February 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/releases/, consulted 2 October 2017.

[24] “Product roadmap,” US Web Design System, https://designsystem.digital.gov/whats-new/product-roadmap/, consulted 2 May 2018. 

[25] See https://bit.ly/2HH4shL, consulted 6 September 2017.

[26] The IRM received this information from GSA during the pre-publication review of this report. The comment was received via e-mail on 30 April 2018.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] “Federal Agency LEP Plans,” Limited English Proficiency (LEP), 30 March 2018, https://www.lep.gov/guidance/fed_LEP_Plan.html, consulted 2 May 2018.

[30] “Q1 2017 Analytics Update,” US Web Design System, 27 March 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/03/27/u-s-web-design-standards-exposure-analytics/, consulted 6 September 2017.

[31] “Overview,” US Web Design System, https://designsystem.digital.gov/whats-new/#web-analytics-for-sites-that-use-the-design-system, consulted 2 May 2018.

[32] The IRM received this information from GSA during the pre-publication review of this report. The comment was received via e-mail on 30 April 2018.

[33] “About This Site,” Analytics.USA.Gov, https://analytics.usa.gov/#explanation, consulted 6 September 2017.

[34] “U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Case Study,” US Web Design System, 31 March 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/03/31/u-s-customs-and-border-patrol-case-study/, consulted 6 September 2017.

[35] See http://www.usajobs.gov, consulted 6 September 2017.

[36] “How the USAJOBS Team Uses the U.S. Web Design Standards,” US Web Design System, 19 June 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/06/19/usajobs-case-study/, consulted 6 September 2017.

[37] “How the Vets.gov Team Uses the U.S. Web Design Standards,” US Web Design System, 10 July 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/07/10/vets-case-study/, consulted 6 September 2017.

[38] “How the Code.gov Team Uses the U.S. Web Design Standards,” US Web Design System, 24 July 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/07/24/code-gov-case-study/, consulted 6 September 2017.

[39] “How the USDA Team Uses the U.S. Web Design Standards,” US Web Design System, 6 June 2017, https://standards.usa.gov/whats-new/updates/2017/06/06/usda-case-study/, consulted 6 September 2017.