Responses to the Audit
Use the links below to jump to the response from a specific agency
California State Auditor’s Comment on the Response From California Community Colleges
California Government Operations Agency, California Department of Human Resources
California Government Operations Agency, California Department of Technology
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the California Department of Technology
Covered CaliforniaCalifornia State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Covered California
California Government Operations Agency, State of California Franchise Tax Board
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the State of California Franchise Tax Board
Response from California Community Colleges
May 7, 2015
Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft audit report. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office welcomes the oversight of your office and is committed to ensuring that our web sites fully comply with accessibility requirements so that we can continue to offer students and the public high levels of service.
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office agrees with all findings, and we have taken or will take the following actions:
- We will follow a written test approach that describes how and when changes to our web sites will be reviewed. We are in the process of contracting with WebAIM, a well-respected third-party accessibility expert organization based at Utah State University to perform full testing before each release. We have developed reusable test cases to validate that all issues found in the audit have been addressed.
- We have made improvements to our processes and systems to more clearly and consistently track accessibility defects found in testing and user reported issues from initial report through repair and release.
- We have developed an Accessibility Page that was reviewed by the State Auditor’s Office with contact information for persons with disabilities to report problems and browser-specific usability information. This page will be released in May 2015.1
- In addition we have hired an accessibility consultant and have included a full-time Accessibility Manager position into our web development organization to ensure that we are following best practices as well as state and federal requirements and guidelines.
Thank you once again for your office’s findings and recommendations. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Signed by Erik Skinner
Erik Skinner
Deputy Chancellor
California State Auditor’s Comment on the Response From California Community Colleges
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on California Community Colleges’ (Community Colleges) response to our audit. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of Community Colleges’ response.
1 In April 2015 Community Colleges shared with us a draft version of an accessibility page that, at the time, it planned to release publicly in May 2015. However, after we reviewed the draft page, we informed Community Colleges that it did not include one form of contact information that best practices indicate should be included on state websites so that persons with disabilities can report web accessibility issues they encounter. Specifically, the draft page did not include a teletypewriter number as a form of contact information. We expect that Community Colleges will inform us in its 60-day response to this audit of its plan to include this contact information on its new accessibility page.
Response from California Government Operations Agency, California Department of Human Resources
Cover Letter From the California Government Operations Agency
DATE: May 6, 2015
TO: Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
FROM: Marybel Batjer, Secretary [signed by Marybel Batjer]
SUBJECT: California State Auditor's Report 2014-131: Federal Accessibility Standards for Electronic Information Technology (Section 508 Standards)
Pursuant to the above audit report, enclosed are the California Department of Human Resources' (CalHR) comments pertaining to the results of the audit.
The Government Operations Agency would like to thank the California State Auditor for its comprehensive review. The results provide us with the opportunity to better serve our clients and protect the public.
Enclosure
Response from CalHR
May 6, 2015
Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Response to California State Auditor’s Draft Report:
Website Accessibility Standards – 2014-131
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the California State Auditor’s (CSA) Report No. 2014-131, which addresses recommendations to the Department of Human Resources resulting from its website accessibility standards audit. We take these audit findings very seriously and are committed to adequately and expeditiously addressing all concerns identified by CSA. CalHR is taking all necessary measures to facilitate access for our customers with disabilities to CalHR web content in a manner comparable to those without disabilities.
CalHR welcomes all opportunities to improve our websites and enhance our service delivery to the public. Since our exit interview we have taken immediate corrective actions to address issues identified by your staff. These include, but are not limited to 1) correcting 448 of 462 violations identified in this audit, 2) implementing CalHR’s new Test Management Plan, a comprehensive development and quality assurance testing plan that includes manual and automated accessibility testing procedures, and 3) enlisting external consultants, whom are already a part of an ongoing process improvement effort within CalHR, to assist in reengineering CalHR’s workflow for processing website complaints and issues.
Additionally, CalHR has begun to develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to ensure we address all of the State Auditor’s recommendations and completion dates. We believe that the CAP will successfully address the deficiencies identified by this audit and will make CalHR’s websites and applications accessible to all customers.
The following addresses each recommendation contained within the CSA’s report.
Chapter 1, Recommendation 1: To ensure that it address barriers to the accessibility of its website for persons with disabilities, CalHR should, no later than December 1, 2015, correct the accessibility violations we found during our review.
CalHR’s Response:
CalHR agrees with this recommendation and will meet the December 2015 timeframe.
CSA identified 462 violations categorized as 33 critical, 400 serious and 29 moderate violations. To date, CalHR’s IT staff corrected 448 of these violations with 30 of the 33 critical violations corrected, 391 of the 400 serious violations corrected and all 29 moderate violations corrected. The majority of these violations were color contrast issues between the foreground and background colors used on the page. Over 90 of these color contrast violations were on a single page and were quickly corrected.
Chapter 1, Recommendation 2: No later than December 1, 2015, CalHR should develop a plan to determine whether the accessibility violations we identified exist on other portions of its online presence that we did not include in the scope of review. Once this plan is executed, it should correct violations wherever it finds them and do so no later than June 1, 2016.
CalHR’s Response:
CalHR agrees with this recommendation and will meet the recommended timeframes.
As previously noted, CalHR is developing a CAP that includes a road map for accessibility testing throughout all of CalHR’s websites. This will ensure we address all of the accessibility issues identified in the audit on other portions of our online presence as well as identify other accessibility issues. To accomplish this, CalHR will use an automated testing tool that has already been purchased as well as manual quality assurance testers to ensure comprehensive compliance.
Chapter 2, Recommendation 1: To ensure that updates to its website are tested for accessibility, by July 31, 2015, CalHR should develop and follow a written test approach that describes how and when changes to its website will be reviewed. This plan should describe how the department will include both automated and manual forms of accessibility testing.
CalHR’s Response:
CalHR agrees with this recommendation and will meet the July 2015 timeframe.
CalHR prepared a new comprehensive Test Management Plan that includes manual and automated accessibility testing procedures. The plan encompasses new development as well as updates to the existing websites. Development staff will be trained on the new procedures.
Chapter 2, Recommendation 2: To ensure that it can adequately track the results of its accessibility testing, by July 31, 2015, CalHR should develop tracking tools that will allow it to document its testing efforts. At a minimum, these tools should track what portions of its jobs site were tested, what errors were found, and whether and when those errors were addressed.
CalHR’s Response:
CalHR agrees with this recommendation and will meet the July 2015 timeframe.
As mentioned in the response to Chapter 2, Recommendation 1, CalHR prepared a new comprehensive Test Management Plan that includes manual and automated accessibility testing procedures. CalHR will follow a structured approach that will include tracking of issues from discovery to resolution.
Chapter 2, Recommendation 3: So that complaints from the public do not go unaddressed, by July 31, 2015, CalHR should develop procedures for addressing complaints about the accessibility of its website and methods for tracking the complaints it receives and their resolution.
CalHR’s Response:
CalHR agrees with this recommendation and will meet the July 2015 timeframe.
CalHR has engaged external consultants whom are already a part of CalHR’s ongoing process improvement effort to assist in reengineering our existing workflow for processing website complaints and issues. The reengineering process will commence no later than the end of May 2015. Procedures will be documented to ensure we have a well communicated process for addressing complaints by July 31, 2015.
Finally, CalHR continues to train business and web team staff on the importance of accessibility as well as the process involved to make all web content accessible.
CalHR thanks the CSA staff for their level of professionalism and collaboration with CalHR on this effort. We greatly appreciate CSA’s continued efforts to make the State of California websites equally accessible to all customers.
Sincerely,
Signed by Richard Gillihan
Richard Gillihan
Director
Response from California Government Operations Agency, California Department of Technology
Cover Letter From the California Government Operations Agency
DATE: May 6, 2015
TO: Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
FROM: Marybel Batjer, Secretary [signed by Marybel Batjer]
SUBJECT: California State Auditor's Report 2014-131: Federal Accessibility Standards for Electronic Information Technology (Section 508 Standards)
Pursuant to the above audit report, enclosed are the California Department of Technology's comments pertaining to the results of the audit.
The Government Operations Agency would like to thank the California State Auditor for its comprehensive review. The results provide us with the opportunity to better serve our clients and protect the public.
Enclosure
Response from the California Department of Technology
May 6, 2015
Ms. Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Response to California State Auditor’s Draft Report No. 2014-131
Dear Ms. Howle:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft California State Auditor’s Report No. 2014-131 on Section 508 Compliance. The following responses address the California State Auditor’s recommendations regarding the Department of Technology’s operations.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
We understand the Auditor’s recommendations to develop a standard testing approach including web accessibility training and assessment of accessibility testing approaches. For recommendations addressed to the Legislature, we want to emphasize that the Department of Technology is not currently resourced to provide web accessibility training, nor to assess the sufficiency of testing and remediation approach for each governmental entity. We would also note that the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) is the state’s authority on accessibility standards.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION #1: To ensure that all state departments are reminded about web accessibility requirements and best practices, by July 31, 2015, the Department of Technology should issue an official reminder that directs state departments to key policy documents and the SIMM for additional information about how to meet their obligation to provide accessible websites.
Department of Technology’s Response #1:
The Department of Technology will consider the best option to remind state departments by July 31, 2015, to key policy documents and the SIMM for additional information about how to meet their obligation to provide accessible websites.
RECOMMENDATION #2: To help state websites achieve a higher degree of overall accessibility, by July 31, 2015, the Department of Technology should post standard browser usability features and links to further information on its resources website, and direct all state departments to include this information on their websites.
Department of Technology’s Response #2:
The Department of Technology will post standard browser usability features and a link to further information on its resources website by July 31, 2015. The Department of Technology will consult with the DOR to determine standard browser usability features and links to further information.
Browser usability features and information about web accessibility change as technology changes, so this information needs to be updated regularly. DOR keeps current on these changes and can provide and maintain this content on an ongoing basis.
RECOMMENDATION #3: To standardize California’s approach to web accessibility testing, the Department of Technology should issue a policy that specifies the method by which state departments should conduct web accessibility testing. This policy should include information about a minimum combination of operating systems, browsers, and assistive technologies that should be used during testing.
Department of Technology’s Response #3:
The Department of Technology will involve state information technology stakeholders in the issuance of a new policy on web accessibility testing.
We are unsure of the need to identify specific operating systems in this new policy, but will perform additional research to make the determination.2 We will be working with the DOR since they have a key role in developing policy in this area given their expertise with assistive technology and how it interacts with operating systems, browsers, electronic systems, and electronic documents.
The Department of Technology is committed to improving the delivery of information technology for the State of California.
Sincerely,
Signed by Carlos Ramos
CARLOS RAMOS
Director of Technology
cc: Marybel Batjer, Secretary, California Government Operations Agency
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the California Department of Technology
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the California Department of Technology’s (CalTech) response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of CalTech’s response.
1 Throughout its response, CalTech makes statements that indicate that it believes the California Department of Rehabilitation (Rehabilitation) is the lead department in the State for matters related to web accessibility. As we state in our report, the state law that requires government entities to maintain their websites in accordance with the Section 508 standards does not establish a department specifically responsible for statewide enforcement or oversight of these standards. However, state law does assign CalTech the general responsibility for information technology oversight and enforcement. Therefore, in our recommendations related to greater oversight of accessibility testing, increased training regarding web accessibility, posting specific usability features to all state department websites, and developing a standardized approach to web accessibility testing, we identified CalTech as the logical department that should be responsible for such activities. As we indicate in our recommendation for increased web accessibility training, CalTech may need to partner with other departments such as Rehabilitation.
2 As we state in our report, the World Wide Web Consortium, which is the organization that developed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines California first adopted in 2006, recommends that organizations establish an accessibility support baseline, or minimum combination of operating systems, browsers, and assistive technologies that is expected to work with a website. Therefore, we recommend that CalTech issue a policy that specifies the method by which state departments should conduct web accessibility testing, including information about the minimum combination of operating systems, browsers, and assistive technologies to be used in such testing.
Response from Covered California
May 6, 2015
Elaine M. Howle, CPA
State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Covered California Response to Audit of Covered California’s Website Accessibility
Dear Ms. Howle,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the website accessibility audit your office conducted of the website used by millions for gaining access to information about health insurance options and enrolling in Covered California or Medi-Cal health plans. Coveredca.com and the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment and Retention System (CalHEERS) were jointly developed by Covered California and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) since their inception. Covered California and DHCS are committed to maximizing website accessibility for all California consumers including those with disabilities. We are committed to creating the best consumer experience for those seeking eligibility for financial help and for enrolling in health insurance. Our team, including our selected vendor Accenture, has worked hard since 2012, to create a website portal for Californians to use to enroll in health insurance to fulfill the mandate of the federal and California Affordable Care Acts and we have had to do this in a very short period of time.
Covered California and DHCS, with our vendor Accenture, engaged specialists to conduct Section 508 testing as part of the front-end development and for the early releases of CalHEERS. The Section 508 issues identified by testers of those early releases were fixed prior to use by the public.1 We appreciate that your audit identified some Section 508 problems that were recently introduced by later releases. We are committed to fixing those relatively recent problems before the end of 2015.2 In addition, we are committed to making our pre-release Section 508 testing more robust to avoid inadvertently creating website accessibility problems in the future.
Some of the incidents identified in the audit were with the www.coveredca.com website and the rest were with CalHEERS, the software which handles the complex, multi-layered tasks associated with determining eligibility for Medi-Cal or for Advanced Premium Tax Credits through Covered California and facilitating enrollment into a Covered California health plan. All of the website incidents identified have been remediated. Because making changes to CalHEERS requires much more detailed analysis, planning and cost, how and when to address those issues requires further research which is underway. We will continue to evaluate what fixes are needed to CalHEERS to remediate Section 508 issues that have been identified. We are committed to maximizing website accessibility for all Californians and to continuously improving our effort to offer a world-class consumer experience for everyone.
We note that you searched for but did not find any website accessibility complaints filed with Covered California during your audit timeframe. We receive many complaints from consumers on a wide variety of issues including those seeking help with their health plans, wishing to change health plans and the like. We are a consumer-driven operation and always strive to be as responsive as we can to addressing consumer input and the deficiencies raised by the audit provide an opportunity to improve that were not raised by consumers.
Recommendations
- As noted earlier, we have already remediated the incidents related to the Coveredca.com website identified in the audit.
- We acknowledge the potential barriers to website accessibility for persons with disabilities using CalHEERS identified in this report. We have determined that two issues are causing 75% of these incidents. Fixes for those two issues are being implemented in June 2015.
- We are researching the remaining 25% of incidents related to CalHEERS identified in your report. We need additional information in some cases to better understand which of the guidelines are at issue. We sent a request to your office asking for this information to assist us in evaluating how best to approach fixing our software to address the potential problems.3 When we complete researching and better understanding the remaining incidents, we will be able to identify which fixes can be implemented in September 2015.
- We accept your recommendation that we develop a written test approach that will describe how and when changes proposed for our website will be tested prior to implementing those changes. This written test approach will include use of both automated and manual forms of accessibility testing. The results of the testing should enable us to better identify additional fixes that are needed before changes are made to the website. It is our goal to avoid making changes to our website that inadvertently result in web accessibility problems.
- We accept your recommendation to increase training opportunities for CalHEERS and Covered California staff to be able to better identify ways to avoid creating website accessibility problems.4 We will identify those training opportunities and make them available to our staff.
- We accept your recommendation to expand the number of communication channels for consumers to use to submit specific website accessibility complaints. We currently have an email box dedicated to receive website accessibility complaints. We will be clear on how consumers who wish to file website accessibility complaints can use the other communication channels you suggest including mailing address, telephone number and a TTY phone number.
- We accept your recommendation to document a written process for not only receiving website accessibility complaints but also escalating and resolving those complaints. A documented process for reviewing and responding to any website accessibility complaint will be completed in May 2015.
Thank you for the opportunity to review our processes and procedures to ensure that we are succeeding in the important mission of making affordable health care available to all Californians, including those with disabilities. Sincerely,
Peter V. Lee
Executive Director
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Covered California
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Covered California’s response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of Covered California’s response.
1 Covered California’s statement that Section 508 issues identified by testers of early releases of the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment, and Retention System (CalHEERS) were fixed prior to use by the public is incorrect. As we state in our report, not all of the accessibility defects that Covered California identified before its first major release of CalHEERS were fixed before that release went public.
2 It is unclear to us how Covered California could know that the issues we found during our review were only recently introduced. As we discuss in our report, Covered California did not conduct dedicated web accessibility testing after the first major release of CalHEERS to the public in October 2013. Since that time, Covered California has released several updates to CalHEERS without testing the updates for accessibility. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some of the web accessibility problems we identified had been introduced to the public as early as 2013.
3 As of the date of its response, we had not received a request from Covered California for additional information related to our review. On May 9, 2015, three days after the date of its response to our draft report, we did receive a request for additional information from Covered California. We then worked with Covered California to provide additional information about the results of our review as appropriate.
4 Although we are pleased to see that Covered California plans to identify web accessibility training opportunities and make them available to its staff, we make no recommendation to Covered California regarding increased training on web accessibility. In our report, we recommend that the Legislature require governmental entities provide or obtain web accessibility training for their staff, and we also recommend that the California Department of Technology be assigned the responsibility for providing this training. Our report includes information about the absence of staff training at Covered California to support our conclusion that increased training statewide is merited.
Response from the California Government Operations Agency, State of California Franchise Tax Board
Cover Letter From the California Government Operations Agency
DATE: May 6, 2015
TO: Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
FROM: Marybel Batjer, Secretary [signed by Marybel Batjer]
SUBJECT: California State Auditor's Report 2014-131: Federal Accessibility Standards for Electronic Information Technology (Section 508 Standards)
Pursuant to the above audit report, enclosed are the Franchise Tax Board's comments pertaining to the results of the audit.
The Government Operations Agency would like to thank the California State Auditor for its comprehensive review. The results provide us with the opportunity to better serve our clients and protect the public.
Enclosure
Response from the Franchise Tax Board
05.06.15
To: Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
From: Selvi Stanislaus
Subject: Response to California State Auditor’s Draft Report: Section 508 Compliance Audit
Memorandum
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the California State Auditor’s (state auditor) Report No. 2014-131, which addresses recommendations to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) resulting from its audit of compliance with electronic and information technology accessibility requirements (specifically regarding CalFile, our web-based tax return filing service).
FTB’s Response:
FTB agrees with the state auditor’s recommendations and looks forward to addressing them. We are very committed to making our website as accessible as possible for California taxpayers and welcome recommendations that further that end.
We do feel, however, that the state auditor’s report does not provide an accurate picture of the overall level of accessibility that we have achieved and the effort that has accompanied that over recent years. 1FTB has a strong commitment to providing services and information to help taxpayers file accurate and timely tax returns and pay the proper amount owed. We provide several services to our taxpayers to make this possible, one of them being CalFile, our web-based tax return filing service. The report should have provided greater context in relation to the utility of our CalFile service and the related application of the browser and screen reading tool that was tested for purposes of the audit.
To provide context regarding our CalFile service in relation to overall tax return filing, for tax year 2014, 14.9 million California income tax returns have been filed through early May, with 13.3 million electronically filed.2 Of the 13.3 million electronically filed returns, 240,000 returns were filed using CalFile. This represents less than two percent of both electronically filed tax returns and total tax returns.3
The following paragraph is one of several that are referenced by the State Auditor's rebuttal point 2.
FTB customers use four main browsers to access our website: Google Chrome (38%), Microsoft Internet Explorer (27%), Safari (20%) and Firefox (14%). As indicated in the state auditor’s report, the Firefox web browser is used by more than 500 million people worldwide, however, it is used by only 14% of our customers and its use is trending downwards, which is parallel to global trends.
The state auditor conducted its review using NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA), which is a free screen reader most commonly used by approximately 19%* of individuals who use screen readers to access web content. FTB tests for website accessibility using Job Access With Speech (JAWS), most commonly used by 50% of individuals using screen readers (Ibid). We test JAWS against most commonly used browsers by screen reader users, including Firefox. Those testing results show CalFile achieving an accessibility rate of 94%.4
The following paragraph is one of several that are referenced by the State Auditor's rebuttal point 2.
The state auditor’s testing combination, only, of the Firefox web browser with NVDA, does not, in our opinion, provide an accurate context of FTB’s overall CalFile (or website in general) accessibility levels.5 In fact, FTB’s statistical data estimates that the combination of NVDA and Firefox is used by less than two dozen CalFile customers, who using another browser or screen reader (approximately two-thirds of screen reader users use multiple readers (Ibid)) would not experience the critical NVDA/Firefox errors noted in the state auditor’s report.6 Therefore, although the audit report portrays FTB’s accessibility picture somewhat negatively, the actual numbers are not nearly as egregious as portrayed.7
FTB puts in a tremendous amount of effort into our ongoing commitment to accessibility. Each year, on a year-round basis, we devote in excess of 3,000 hours to accessibility testing and improvements. We have dedicated numerous resources, program structure and oversight towards improving accessibility and ensuring individuals with impairment challenges can easily file their returns and pay their tax obligations. Accessibility is a core component within our Software Development Life-Cycle.
In attempts to make all FTB web services accessible to persons with disabilities, FTB also strives to maximize the effectiveness of its accessibility resources by prioritizing its efforts and making the most frequently used services the most accessible. We are proactive in our accessibility testing and are continuously logging, prioritizing, and fixing any identified errors.
Recommendation #1: Ensure keyboard-only users that navigate the Internet using the Firefox browser are able to select a security image when registering to use the CalFile application in order to file their return online.8
The following paragraph is one of several that are referenced by the State Auditor's rebuttal point 2.
FTB’s Response #1: We are actively working on evaluating a solution to enable keyboard-only users the ability to register for CalFile when utilizing the Firefox browser. Part of our evaluation is determining whether the inability to select a security image in Firefox is a browser issue for which we can’t overcome. This issue occurs in specific browsers and not in others. FTB customers use four main browsers to access our website: Google Chrome (38%), Microsoft Internet Explorer (27%), Safari (20%) and Firefox (14%). FTB supports these website browsers that keyboard-only users can utilize. Also, our website directs users that experience issues while using the latest version of any browser to try one of the other browsers we support.
The following paragraph is one of two that are referenced by the State Auditor's rebuttal point 8.
Recommendation #2: Ensure the PDF file that summarizes return information that has been entered into CalFile is fully accessible to visually impaired users so the information can be verified prior to submission of their online return.
FTB’s Response #2: We are actively pursuing a PDF solution and plan to have a solution in place by the end of the year.
Recommendation #3: Develop a plan to determine whether the accessibility issues identified in the audit exist on other portions of FTB’s online presence that were not included in the scope of the review.
FTB’s Response #3: We will continue to assess accessibility gaps across our online services and update our prioritized plan by December 1, 2015, with the goal of fixing those gaps by June 1, 2016.
In closing, I’d like to reiterate that FTB takes accessibility very seriously and we are constantly striving to adhere to accessibility standards and guidelines and to improve our products and services to meet the needs of our customers.
Sincerely,
Signed by Selvi Stanislaus
Executive Officer
cc: Marybel Batjer
* WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey #5, January 2014.
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the State of California Franchise Tax Board
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the State of California Franchise Tax Board’s (Franchise Tax Board) response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of Franchise Tax Board’s response.
1 We clearly identify in the Scope and Methodology section for Objective 5 on the Introduction page of our report that we reviewed a key online service at each department; we did not claim to assess the overall level of accessibility at Franchise Tax Board. Our report accurately conveys, in Table 5, the number of web pages we reviewed at Franchise Tax Board and the number of those pages where we identified violations of web accessibility standards that Franchise Tax Board is required to follow. Further, in Table 6, we provide an accurate count of the number and severity level of accessibility violations we found. However, as we state in our report, it is possible that the types of violations that we describe, as well as other violations, exist in other areas of Franchise Tax Board’s online presence that we did not review.
2 We have no independent verification of the data that Franchise Tax Board presents in its response.
3 In providing context, Franchise Tax Board appears to downplay the significance of its CalFile service because, according to the data it presents, the number of taxpayers who use CalFile is relatively small. Nevertheless, regardless of how many individuals use this online service, state law and policy require this service to be accessible by persons with disabilities. Our report shows that at the time of our review, this was not always the case.
4 Franchise Tax board makes a misleading claim about the compliance with web accessibility standards of its CalFile application. Franchise Tax Board claims the CalFile application has an accessibility rate of 94 percent. This refers to the findings of accessibility reports that are completed by its internal accessibility testers that pertain to compliance with federal accessibility standards. However, these test reports do not include information about CalFile’s compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, which are standards adopted by California that Franchise Tax Board is required to follow in addition to the federal standards. Additionally, these accessibility reports show that Franchise Tax Board believes the PDF-related violation we describe in our report is the difference between 94 percent or 100 percent compliance. However, as we state on that same page, the PDF file that Franchise Tax Board presents to users before they submit their tax returns is inaccessible to visually impaired users with screen readers. Therefore, despite its claim of an accessibility rate of 94 percent, visually impaired screen reader users cannot complete the process of filing tax returns using Franchise Tax Board’s product without risking submitting an inaccurate return.
5 Franchise Tax Board incorrectly states that our web accessibility consultant’s (consultant) use of Mozilla Firefox and NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) to assess Franchise Tax Board’s compliance with web accessibility standards provides inaccurate context about the accessibility of CalFile. According to our consultant, testing with the Job Access With Speech (JAWS) screen reader as Franchise Tax Board indicates it does would lead to an inaccurate assessment of the accessibility of CalFile. This is because JAWS sometimes takes inaccessible website code and guesses what the accessible code should have been. In addition, testing with JAWS as the primary assistive technology can lead to critical accessibility errors being missed in testing. Conversely, NVDA, the primary screen reader our consultant used, does not guess at what the website code should have contained. NVDA, more comprehensively than JAWS, identifies instances where a website is not properly designed and therefore does provide an accurate assessment of Franchise Tax Board’s compliance with California’s web accessibility standards.
6 Franchise Tax Board is incorrect when it states that if users chose different web browsers or screen readers they would not experience the critical errors we note in our report. We identified several critical violations that users would experience even if they switched browsers. For example, our consultant identified a critical violation on Franchise Tax Board’s website wherein the closed captioning button on a video player was not available and confirmed that the violation occurred in multiple browsers. Further, in our report, we describe a problem with the PDF that Franchise Tax Board requires CalFile users to review prior to submitting their tax returns. This issue prevents visually impaired screen reader users from reviewing the PDF prior to submitting their returns. As noted in our report, Franchise Tax Board has known about this issue for more than two years and considered it an accessibility violation that required remediation despite not using the screen reader our web accessibility consultant used to conduct its accessibility testing.
7 It is unclear what “actual numbers” Franchise Tax Board is referring to. We are very clear in our report that it contains information regarding the number of accessibility violations that occur on the web pages we reviewed. Franchise Tax Board suggests throughout its response that the violations we identified are either not valid due to the testing tools our consultant employed or not likely to affect a large number of users. Franchise Tax Board’s effort to minimize the importance of our findings because they are only likely to affect a small number of users is puzzling given that the web accessibility standards it violated are designed to ensure website access for a minority population of users. As described in comment three, Franchise Tax Board is required to provide an accessible online product regardless of the popularity of that product. Moreover, the type of violations we found may occur on other web pages that we did not review as part of this audit.
8 Franchise Tax Board narrowed its response to our recommendations to focus only on examples of violations we describe in the report text. In doing so, it has rewritten the recommendation we made in our report. To be clear, we recommended that Franchise Tax Board resolve all of the accessibility violations that our consultant identified, not just the violations we describe in detail in our report text. Further, we have provided Franchise Tax Board the information necessary to address all of those violations.