A Study in Contrasts: Accessibility and the California State Government

By s.e. smith
on 15 October, 2010

I am, as some readers may be aware, in the process of moving house which means that I am skittering about in all directions trying to do things like getting my address changed everywhere and rounding up boxes and impatiently waiting for Moving Day.

I try to do as many things online as possible, so on the off chance that the Department of Motor Vehicles would let me, I went to their website to see if
I could enter an online address change. As it turns out, I could! Hooray! But what really interested me was that the
DMV’s website is covered in multiple notices about accessibility. Starting right at the top of the page: The topline navigation on the DMV website is skip navigation.

Implementation of skip navigation is rather spotty, so it’s really exciting to see it on a government website.

They have a section of the website discussing disability services and accommodations at DMV locations.

Yes, the headline on the page includes the cringeworthy ‘the disabled,’ but it covers a lot of topics, from getting ‘terps for doing business at DMV offices
to service animals. It also refers to ‘special assistance’ as opposed to just ‘assistance’ or ‘accommodations,’ but I like that the accessibility policy
for DMV locations specifically avoids the trap of only discussing certain disabilities, and that it includes information about getting your business done
online or over the phone, for people who do that.

There’s also a separate website accessibility policy, which includes this statement:

The Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) website has been developed in compliance with California Government Code 11135, located in Section D of the California Government Code. Code 11135 requires that all electronic and information technology developed or purchased by the State of California Government is accessible to people with disabilities. There are various types of physical disabilities that impact user interaction on the web. Vision loss, hearing loss, limited manual dexterity, and cognitive disabilities are examples, with each having different means by which to access electronic information effectively. Our goal is to provide a good web experience for all visitors. (emphasis mine)

That’s right. The state government thinks that accessibility is important enough that it requires accessibility for new electronic/information technology
acquired for government use. Not only that, it recognises that accessibility is complex and multifaceted, and that multiple issues must be considered when designing accessible spaces. The website accessibility policy goes on to talk about specific design features they have implemented and how to use them, and provides general tools for web browsers that could be applied beyond the DMV site. Honestly, and I never thought I would be saying this about the DMV, it’s a resource useful enough that I would probably send people to it if they were looking for tips on basic design for accessibility, and basic browser modifications to make browsing more accessible.

Let’s contrast this with the Canadian government’s decision to go to court to avoid making their websites accessible to screen readers.

Now, let’s not misstate things here: The State of California is not a perfect model of Access for All and it shouldn’t be mistaken as such. But the difference
between these two situations is quite a study in contrasts. On the one hand, you  have a government deciding that spending funds on technology that everyone can’t access is not acceptable, and, in fact, so not acceptable that it passes a law about it. On the other hand, you have a government so fervently resistant to one accessibility issue that it wants to go to court to defend its right to deny citizens access.

One government decides, as a matter of policy, that taxpayer funds should not be spent on inaccessible equipment. Another does not. Is California perfect?

Certainly not, but they’re making a good faith effort, and it’s a significant step in the right direction. It’s especially significant that the information
is readily available and made as visible as possible, because it’s not just available to disabled users of the DMV website. It’s also visible to nondisabled users, and may get some of them thinking about accessibility, and perhaps
reframing the way they define accessibility.

Reproduced from http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/10/15/a-study-in-contrasts-accessibility-and-the-california-state-government/