Both sites support multiple languages (English and Spanish), and both include lang="es" on the element of the Spanish pages. However, on the CDC site, in addition to lang="es" the element has xml:lang="en". This potentially sends mixed messages to screen readers (is this web page in Spanish or English?) JAWS 13 seems to honor lang rather than xml:lang but I don't know about other screen readers.
Luckily, the international nonprofit World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) brings together smart people who develop open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web. They produce recommendations for making websites fair and equally accessible for the highest number of people possible. Their Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 offer clear guidance for web developers to achieve ADA compliance.
Imagine struggling to do something as simple as navigating and reading a website, when you’re suffering from Glaucoma, Cataracts, Macular degeneration, Retinal disorders, Refractive errors, Optic nerve disorders, and other eye issues. Reading the text in order to gain knowledge and information, would be tiring at the least. Your website doesn’t need to be like that, in fact, your website can be a pleasant experience where the visually impaired can easily zoom in and out on every page or, the text to speech feature will convert to the audible voice that you are listening to right now.
Another federal agency, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB), also known as the Access Board, issues guidelines to ensure that buildings, facilities and transit vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities. The Guidelines & Standards issued under the ADA and other laws establish design requirements for the construction and alteration of facilities. These standards apply to places of public accommodation, commercial facilities, and state and local government facilities.
“The idea of equal access, equal opportunity has sort of evolved in its application from brick and mortar to eCommerce. At first, many companies were worried about the desktop experience. Now, the concern extends to both smart phones and devices. Wherever a consumer accesses your content – whether it be directly through the web or an app – you need to be concerned about accessibility.”
Video remote interpreting (VRI) is a fee-based service that uses video conferencing technology to access an off-site interpreter to provide real-time sign language or oral interpreting services for conversations between hearing people and people who are deaf or have hearing loss. The new regulations give covered entities the choice of using VRI or on-site interpreters in situations where either would be effective. VRI can be especially useful in rural areas where on-site interpreters may be difficult to obtain. Additionally, there may be some cost advantages in using VRI in certain circumstances. However, VRI will not be effective in all circumstances. For example, it will not be effective if the person who needs the interpreter has difficulty seeing the screen (either because of vision loss or because he or she cannot be properly positioned to see the screen, because of an injury or other condition). In these circumstances, an on-site interpreter may be required.