According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness there are 43 million people around the world living with blindness, and 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Put those statistics next to these: There are nearly 2 billion websites, and 550,000 created every day.
Shouldn’t sight-impaired people have the same access to these sites as sighted people? Of course they should. There is good news. After previously announcing guidance, the DOJ says new regulations are on the way under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which describes the obligations for state and local governments. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this.
Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. He is a recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Information Technology. He served as lead counsel for the interagency working group, making the federal government's information technology accessible. He is founding and former board member of the International Association of Accessibility Professionals and serves on their certification committee. Ken is passionate about the need for regulations to ensure greater accessibility to the internet for all people. You can read his latest post on the subject at the Converge Accessibility Blog.
Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall, Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. He has more than 25 years’ experience developing and managing custom applications on a variety of platforms and public and private sectors, supporting training and training related services. Hiram is also a frequent contributor to LexisNexis Mealey’s Litigation Report: CyberTech and E-Commerce, which I launched when I was publisher there a thousand years ago. Hiram is passionate about promoting accessible technologies in the field of fields of e-learning and web and application development.
This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
P.S. Anytime I make a self-effacing remark about my ignorance concerning this or any subject, it's strictly for entertainment value, a story I will cling to with every fiber in my being.
According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness there are 43 million people around the world living with blindness, and 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Put those statistics next to these: There are nearly 2 billion websites, and 550,000 created every day.
Shouldn’t sight-impaired people have the same access to these sites as sighted people? Of course they should. There is good news. After previously announcing guidance, the DOJ says new regulations are on the way under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which describes the obligations for state and local governments. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this.
Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. He is a recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Information Technology. He served as lead counsel for the interagency working group, making the federal government's information technology accessible. He is founding and former board member of the International Association of Accessibility Professionals and serves on their certification committee. Ken is passionate about the need for regulations to ensure greater accessibility to the internet for all people. You can read his latest post on the subject at the Converge Accessibility Blog.
Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall, Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. He has more than 25 years’ experience developing and managing custom applications on a variety of platforms and public and private sectors, supporting training and training related services. Hiram is also a frequent contributor to LexisNexis Mealey’s Litigation Report: CyberTech and E-Commerce, which I launched when I was publisher there a thousand years ago. Hiram is passionate about promoting accessible technologies in the field of fields of e-learning and web and application development.
This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
P.S. Anytime I make a self-effacing remark about my ignorance concerning this or any subject, it's strictly for entertainment value, a story I will cling to with every fiber in my being.
Web Accessibility Podcast August 2022
Thu, 8/11 4:22PM • 1:12:53
SPEAKERS
Tom Hagy, Ken Nakata, Hiram Kuykendall
INTRO BY TOM HAGY, HOST, EMERGING LITIGATION PODCAST
Hello, and welcome to the emerging litigation podcast. I'm your host, Tom Hagy. So blindness. According to the International Agency for the prevention of blindness, they've got a vision Atlas that tracks the statistics. They say globally, there are 43 million people living with blindness, and nearly 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Now put that next to the fact that there are nearly 2 billion websites. And according to estimates, there are some 550,000 new websites created every day, because there just aren't enough. And I assure you, they are all quality websites, chock a block with compelling information, news, you can use, and photos of kittens. That's not even the worst of it. So what's to be done about it? Well, the DOJ has announced some new regulations are on the way they are going to go with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title two, and title two describes the non discrimination obligations for US state and local governments. So there's a bunch of websites there. So this rule is going to be designed to clarify what state and local governments need to do to make sure their websites and web programs and things are accessible to people with disabilities. Now, one of my guests today asks why we should be excited about this. That's regulation. And he is, and he says, for two reasons. First, the state and local governments need clear rules for what they're expected to do with their websites. You know, for all of us Rule Breakers, actually, like rules. So it's good to, for a lot of reasons, it's the right thing to do. First of all, make sites more accessible, it'll increase the value of your website's also doing so will keep you out of trouble. So there you go. And the second, he said, defied his past cynicism. I'm still waiting for that to happen to me about things in general, he wrote about this, he was disappointed that they had come out with some accessibility guidance before. This is a torch he's been carrying since 2003. Said, We need regulations, not just guidance. It's not we want to know, let's understand this law, what we all can learn from it what to folks have to do with their, you know, with their websites, we're gonna see more or less litigation as a result of these forthcoming regulations. So joining me to discuss these things is the person I alluded to can Akata who's somewhat happier now that there are regulations coming, he's co founder and principal at converge accessibility, and converge provides solutions for making sure websites and other digital technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former senior trial attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights section. He developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. He was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in information technology by Attorney General Janet Reno. He served as lead counsel for the interagency working group, making the federal government's information technology accessible to people with disabilities. He represented the well the United States many times in litigation in federal courts litigation. Gotta love it like I do. Ken is founding and former board member of the International Association of accessibility professionals VI A P and currently serves on their certification committee. Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall is Chief Technology Officer at micro assist. Micro Assist is a learning and development consulting firm based in Austin, Texas. I've tried to get there a couple of times recently, you know, COVID stuff, but that's getting better. But I digress. Hiram is a technical leader. You've had a lot of hands on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. I'll say that again, digital accessibility, and other things. He's got more than 25 years experience developing and managing custom applications on a variety of platforms and public and private sectors, supporting training and training related services. It designs, hosting solutions, all kinds of things. And this will become obvious. Hiram is passionate about promoting accessible, accessible technologies and techniques in the field of fields of elearning and web and application development. Yeah, you'll pick that up right away, arms into this. So with that, I'm going to jump into the end of the podcast. So here is Hiram Kirkendall with micro assist. And Ken Takata with converge accessibility hope you enjoy it.
Tom Hagy 00:20
Hiram Kuykendall, and Ken Nakata. Thank you very much for speaking with me today.
Hiram Kuykendall 00:48
Oh, you're welcome. Glad to be here. Thanks.
Tom Hagy 08:59
That was just 00 enthusiasm. Whatever. That's okay. We got ken up early. So let's just let's dive in with the first. The first question, let's give listeners your impression about how the DOJ applies the current ADA rules and in what's kind of the latest news from from the DOJ what's going on with them. So can you want to take that first?
Ken Nakata 09:27
Sure. So there's been a couple of new developments. I think that for a long time, they're silent on this stuff. And then back in March, they came up with some guidance for web accessibility and the ADEA that covered title two, which are state and local government agencies. And they came up with some guidance and they said that you should follow the web content, the W three C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. And when I came out, I was really disappointed because you You know, it's 2022. And this guidance that they came out with was essentially the same guidance that I wrote when I was back in the Justice Department back in 2003. So that was annoying. And then just at the end of July, they came out where they very quietly announced that they're going to be coming out with regulations on that same topic. So a couple of things have been going on a few new developments, but it's been interesting to say, All right,
Hiram Kuykendall 10:36
so kind of kind of riffing off what Ken said, I actually think the guidance did add one thing that I thought was was pretty was pretty clear. If you were to go to the cage, and I hopefully will put the page in the under the podcast so they can find it. But the Department of Justice, this is what they said in terms of how they evaluate under Title two and Title Three, the Department of Justice does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards. But the department's long standing interpretation of general non discretion discrimination, and effective communication for provides a provisions apply through web accessibility. And then if you skip down a paragraph or two, it says existing technical standards provide helpful guidance concerning how to ensure accessibility of website features, that these include the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG, and the section 508 standards, which the federal government uses for its own websites. So here's, here's my, so the DOJ uses this concept of general non discriminate discrimination, effective communication, and you can end there's plenty of stuff written on it. The problem is, it's very complicated, you can't just give that to the public and say, here's the standard, we're holding it to you or give it to organizations under Title two. So I would contend that the guidance is a little bit like a love letter to the WCAG. They say this is fine, we agree with it, we think you should use it, but they're married. They are married to general non discrimination and effective communication. And I will argue that that is the correct thing to do. Because the technical guidelines such as the WCAG doesn't cover everything. It's technical. It's like for websites and PDFs and things like that. And it alone cannot stand if you look at what's we call a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template or VPAT. That's a a instrument you use when you're selling to state or federal government or Republic grantee body. It actually has multiple sections in there. And I'm greatly abbreviating That, that that topic, but it has the web content accessibility always plus it has section five Wait, because section 508 has things that the WCAG doesn't it? For example, if I wait has functional performance criteria, it has hardware hardware is not good for web content guidelines. It has support documentation. So the question you asked was I'll do this the best I can for you, Tom. How is it? How's it a apply? Well, so under under Title two, you know, the DOJ if there's an issue they'll come in, they'll apply the concepts of general non discrimination effective cremations, communication for state agencies and local governments. And and they will evaluate it on a needs basis, what was the individual's needs? Did you accommodate their needs? Did you meet the did you meet our rules? And that's a very quick synopsis on that. But title three, and this is where I'm going to hand it back over to Kin very quickly, Title Three. There's two answers to that. So if the DOJ has a concern over Title Three, they will come after you same rules, and that would be a very uncomfortable place for an organization to be the DOJ doesn't have small problems, you know, so I mean, that would be that would be concerned. But under Title Three private citizens can seek their own actions for injunctive relief, and to get compensation for legal costs, independent of the Department of Justice. And that is the big concern is that the DOJ, so all these these cases that are being litigated. The DOJ is effectively not even I would say involved. The courts are reading the law and they're applying it because the DOJ keeps coming down saying websites are cut We're under Title Three, they've said it many, many times. And in California, we just had a, a ruling by the California court of appeals that now agrees with the US nikecourt. The websites are not places of public accommodation. So it's what I where I'm trying to go with this is that the law is not being there's no equal application of the law across the United States. The third, fourth, sixth, ninth, 11th courts say that, yeah, that websites are not a place of public accommodation, you have to have a physical location, you have to have a nexus in order for the websites to be to be considered. I tell you, I've said a lot. So let me give Ken a chance to jump in, because I know he is loaded with information to carry that forward.
Tom Hagy 15:50
In coffee, but I'll give it
Ken Nakata 15:53
Exactly, yeah. Yeah, your arms, right. The the tail tunnel through is an entirely different ball of wax. It's when you get to private when you get to private sector companies. It is the DOJ is really saying nothing about that, when he gets the title to the title two uses this concept of program access. And it's a lot easier to get to the get to the idea of web content being part of a program service or activity. And when you think about the way in which state and local governments these days provide their services, it's easy to say, oh, yeah, the website is part of the program. Just like the telephone is just like the office that you go and fill out your forms and wait forever, you know, and talk to somebody. That's part of their programs, too. It's just it's just just another way of doing business.
Hiram Kuykendall 16:53
But to riff on what Ken said their state government has states have laws. So there are additional, there's title two is not the only rule that a public entity is under higher education has section five, a war section 508. You know, title two, where Title Three, you've got one, one law? I'm sorry, I can't didn't mean to jump in on you there.
Ken Nakata 17:18
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, you do also have UNRA California sector. But that's pretty much that's it? You're, you're you're absolutely right. And so the private for private sector, it's a lot harder to cover a private individual, just generally under the law under federal legislation, and then you can, as opposed to covering the state agency. And so also, there's a tricky language and Title Three, because you have to have title three, the ADEA doesn't say, Okay, you have to cover private businesses, it says you have to cover places of public accommodation. And you know, lawyers love to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And so they interpret Whoa, where's the place when we're talking about a about the internet? And is, is a website really a place? And so that's what's that's what's causing a lot of confusion. So, yeah, anyways, so when DOJ came up with these rules, it isn't a surprise, they've quietly announced their friends and friends and family, that they were going to handle title two first, because it's the easier thing to handle.
Tom Hagy 18:36
Yeah. Well, okay, so I'll go back in my intro, and kind of like, well, what are the headlines, the headline differences between title two and title three? I mean, I'll go back and explain it. But if you could just give me for people who are just following along now, title two is what title three is what?
Ken Nakata 18:54
Oh, title to state and local governments. And Title Three is private businesses, basically. Okay.
Hiram Kuykendall 19:02
I would extend that under Title Three, there's two ways a title three is applied. One the Department of Justice is is is has interested in what you're doing. And so they'll be they'll be coming after you, or an individual can take action under Title Three. Okay. Private, right. Important distinction for I think that's an important distinction for for this conversation.
Tom Hagy 19:25
Right. The Now typically when when the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals are split, but usually means somebody wants to go to the Supreme Court to resolve it. Do you think that's going to happen?
Ken Nakata 19:40
Personally, I don't think so. I don't think the Supreme Court wants to get into this. It's not a real it's not a real hot political issue. It's yeah, I don't, I don't see it, but I could be wrong on that.
Tom Hagy 19:56
Okay. So we kind of got into this Can you had written an article which I'll also put a link to? But I'm coming into this kind of remembering You seem disappointed with the guidance, is that accurate? Or am I?
Ken Nakata 20:14
Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I was disappointed. That was one of those times where I read the guidance, I just put my heads in my hand, my head in my hands, and I just shook my head. I mean, it was just it, it really builds, it builds on the thing that I wrote back in 2003. It basically says the same thing, which is, you should try and follow our WIC egg, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, or you should try and follow section 508. And it gave a lot more case citations to base that up. So you know, all the all the settlement agreements that they've entered into it since then that reinforce that principle, but basically, it's the same guidance. And that's not what people need people need regulations, because unless there's something that they can specifically point to, then that that's, that is legally developed, and it's enforceable. And I think that's the key difference, then the people are just gonna say, oh, okay, well, that's nice. You know, it's just because of you have the regulations, that creates a much greater incentive to actually do something about it.
Tom Hagy 21:26
Okay. So I think we're kind of have moved in into the into the next question, but should the DOJ Go ahead,
Hiram Kuykendall 21:36
I think, to extend on that. So title two, I'm kind of neutral. For all those reasons. We said earlier, we have state laws that are modifying it, there are many that you know, for institutions of higher education section five core section, by the way, Title Nine, I mean, we have many, many laws that so there's an awareness, a title to, that doesn't exist on Title Three. So title two, I'm kind of neutral on Title Three, I am disappointed because the mark of a successful guidance would be that we would see a greater awareness, a reduction in the number of lawsuits filed by individuals. And oddly enough, we do see a reduction in lawsuits filed by individuals, but I don't think that's a result of any action that the DOJ has taken. I think the courts have had to step in and and fill that gap. And so on Title Three, I would definitely say that I'm disappointed. Okay.
Tom Hagy 22:37
So, so can you use the new you believe that there shouldn't be a technical standards such as the WCAG added to the rules? Right?
Ken Nakata 22:47
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, to have clarity around exactly what the standards are because of so many organizations, whether they be in the public sector, or the private sector are just throwing up their hands and saying, Oh, well, you know, we're not specifically told that we've got to follow this or we're not going to follow it. We have no incentive to follow it. Because Oh, my gosh, DOJ later on could just come along and create a whole new standard for web accessibility. Of course, they wouldn't do that. But until until they say, Okay, we're gonna stick with with WCAG. They're not gonna follow WCAG. So, yeah,
Hiram Kuykendall 23:27
okay. Sorry. No, go ahead. Okay. All right. So I believe that what the DOJ has as a publicity problem. And so you're asking, you know, should should the web content accessibility guidelines be added to rule I do believe that they should add it to the rule but here's why. Tom, if you were to take a few minutes and you were to go out and you would a search, how do I start an online business? How do I start a shopping cart site something where I'm selling something online, you will come across the seven things you need to know the 10 things you need to know and it's all about marketing and taxes and and how to how to reach customers not one word on accessibility not one single word on those how to sites even mentioned this. So title two, there's an awareness there's the all these things keeping those organizations engaged. Title Three, it's not even in the general sphere it's not even considered or thought about. So we do at the company. I work for Microsoft, we do a tremendous amount of work with people under Title two and title three. And the people who come in at the top three goes I just got this lawsuit. I got a demand letter. I have no idea what this is. You should it Tom, would I be would you be surprised if I told you you had to pay taxes? Maybe Alright, well, actually, it's by your face. Maybe you are. I'm sorry, Tom, but I didn't
Tom Hagy 24:59
what But, watch.
Hiram Kuykendall 25:02
You're kidding.
Tom Hagy 25:03
Let's not go into my tax situation, let's just not.
Hiram Kuykendall 25:07
So here's how here's how I like what Ken said. And I'm just gonna put it in a slightly different term. General non discrimination in effective communication is important. It is the standard by which the DOJ should audit because it's more than just web accessibility. But here's the thing we need, we need a floor. So adding a technical standards such as the WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, to Dotto would be good for publicity. It would be in there we'd say to who well WCAG two level double A is the minimum level that we will, we will, we will adhere to, with with really the full the full gamut being generated on discrimination effective communication, I like it because you know, what it does, is solves my PR problem. Now I have something that I can describe to people in the public. And Kevin kit and I have talked about this, you know, what do we see? When companies come to us and say, Hey, I have this, this, this action against me. It's all WCAG, two Oh, level double A things formfields still don't have labels, we still don't have headings. It's so kid is 100%. Right? If we put it in there, it would do good. But it can't be just that. So it has to be that and plus the Okay, sorry. Go ahead.
Ken Nakata 26:26
Yeah, I mean, I'm actually going to rebuild on riff on that idea. So I think that accessibility in general has a has a publicity and marketing problem. And I think that, and I think that this is one of the things that can really help that because like, if you go to, if you're trying to build a WordPress site, and WordPress or Wix or any other content management system, and you found out that it has major security flaws, or you know, if you or you, you know, privacy was completely compromised on the platform. You of course, you wouldn't go, you wouldn't touch it, right. But if it was if it didn't have accessibility, that accessibility problems, company, let's say it was companies would say, Okay, fine, we don't care. But it's, you know, state local governments, they use a ton of CMS systems. It seems that if the WIC if the dumb if the Justice said, Okay, now you've actually got to follow a standard, now you've actually got to follow the WCAG, then all of a sudden, those content providers will suddenly have an incentive to do something that they should have done in the first place, which is make them make it make it a lot easier for people to create accessible content. And I
Hiram Kuykendall 27:47
guess we'll just bounce back and forth. So if I was going to build the holy grail set, right for what in the federal space we call information and communication technology, that's not just that's websites, it's fax machines is copiers, it's all technology you need i I'm gonna say you need four things. You need the WCAG. For the for the technical guidance on web, you know, web accessibility and PDFs and Word documents, you need the technical part of section 508 Follow the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, right. So the web, you CAG, the technical parts of 508, hardware, software, documentation and support services. And then I don't think you can get away from general non discrimination and effective communication, or at least those concepts because the WCAG, and even section 508. And they're not perfect, you know, if if you're mute and you can't speak, then that's not 100% covered. The WCAG, autism, neurodiversity issues. Those are not covered under technical guidance. But once again, I'm going to stress we have a PR problem here and an easily demonstratable. One, just simply go out and search, how to start a business online. website, you know, shopping site, whatever you want, and you will find the seven things you need to know the 10 things you need to know not one word about Title Three.
Tom Hagy 29:21
Gotcha. Well, who wants regulation? You know, who wants it and who doesn't?
Ken Nakata 29:31
Okay, I'll take that one. Sure. So well, in the context of web accessibility, yeah. Everybody wants it except the plaintiffs bar basically. So, plaintiffs seem to thrive where there's vagueness and confusion. That's just always the case. Because in those in that situation, there isn't a whole lot of pickup in terms of the things that people have to do. And so they spot a vulnerability, and then they can go in and And I take care of that. And, you know, I'm of two minds when it comes to plaintiffs attorneys sometimes I think sometimes I like them sometimes I don't like that. And because they are, there is one thing that they are doing, which is increasing awareness about accessibility. But other than that, you know, I don't I'm not a huge fan of them. So the business community in the sense, I'm
Tom Hagy 30:22
sorry, I didn't mean to laugh at that. But you're not a fan of Go ahead. Yeah.
Ken Nakata 30:27
Wow. I'm not a huge fan of them. Yeah, I mean, I have, I actually like some, some plaintiffs attorneys, I really do respect. Sure. But the business community wants regulations. Because if we have clear standards, people are going to start adopting them, or we're gonna have companies that are going to have make it easier for them to implement them. Like while in addition to companies like Microsoft System, converge accessibility, you know, in addition to us, there gonna be other companies that like the CMS systems that are going to build accessibility into their system, it's just going to be a lot easier. And of course, the disability community wants regulations, because they actually want their websites, these websites to be accessible, so that their members could actually use these sites. So it it's one of those things where everybody wants it. But until the DOJ, do I, it's one of those situations where it's not terribly controversial. And you'd think that DOJ would should just do this. And I don't think it's that hard. But anyways, I've been saying that for years.
Hiram Kuykendall 31:34
So the one thing that I do agree with Ken snuck in something there, that was very good. Lawsuits have moved accessibility long, along in a way that all the advocacy we've done since I started this in the 90s, did not do, I was the crazy guy with a sandwich board, you know, standing on the side of the road, saying the world is going to end. And everybody's just like, that guy is really weird. And then one day, and finally the world came to an end he feel justified as the meteor crashes into the earth. But I so I would, I would like to extend this because we're gonna go into title two, this is fun. They're going to do rulemaking under Title two, who doesn't want them to do this? There are eight states with no accessibility policies, there are three states with less than WCAG, two Oh, level de level double A, there are 39 states that are section five await, which is basically WCAG. Two a level double A. So if the DOJ was to come in and say forget it, we're doing WCAG 2.1. Level A, yeah, got all of them, and they would not be happy. Because of what the DOJ has said, and this is in there. They have many workbooks on how they apply title to you can go Google them, they're wonderful. They put everything out to the public. They say very cleverly, they'll never audit to a standard less than the state's laws less than which means nothing to me, because the you know, we already know where the top bar is. So if they were to come in, and they were to say, we're WCAG 2.1, or latest version, you would turn state laws into this. There'll be implications for state law. Let's let me just stop there.
Tom Hagy 33:20
Okay, let me let me pause just for a couple of my own questions. Because I'm listening, and observations. But first of all, I want to I want to elaborate on something Ken said about plaintiff attorneys. I would expand your feelings about plaintiffs attorneys just to people in general, I think that I just find most people annoying. Now, the so when I'm when I'm, I'm a small businessman, literally and figuratively. Figuratively. I. So when I'm going through my website, it's a WordPress website, and I'm posting the image. It says, Do you want to add, you know, alternative or whatever? That's part of accessibility. Right? So isn't it? I think it is. So if I, if I'm to
Hiram Kuykendall 34:03
vincible? Yes. Well, number one, that's like the first principle. Right? So Right. Okay. So,
Tom Hagy 34:10
so when I'm asked to do that, and I'm too busy, and I think it might, and I don't want to, because I'm in a rush. Am I just being a jerk? Or am I doing something illegal?
Hiram Kuykendall 34:21
Let me answer that from a technical standpoint. That image so first of all, the attorneys that Ken is talking about if you don't do it, then you have an error and easily pointed pointed out error you can go to court and say look, he's got an image that have alternate texts faster, then we're not keep recording this part. So I can say, Oh, we're recording it. Oh, now you're gonna have to scrub that word. So but here's the thing realistically does that image have content? How important is it to the site? So if it if you're having a sale and you have an image that is all of your sales 30% off bars is open to percent off this right, here's a coupon on the bottom and it's all an image. I am injured. I don't know it's there. And so that is a significant thing. If you have a picture of a flower, I would say that you're making a social football, you're making a social issue because you're leaving somebody out. You're You're, you're not being inclusive. And so but here's the thing. So and Ken is, I'm going to turn this over to Ken. But, you know, the things that go to court for Title Three, people don't like details, they just need to go in and say I found 10 images that don't have alternate text, I found five fields that don't have labels. I found these things that are indisputable, that do not align with the WCAG. And Boom, baby mic drop, and we're off with it. We're off. We're off and running. To stop there, Ken.
Ken Nakata 35:52
Yeah, yeah. You you just set out the basis for a complaint in federal court. Yeah. So I mean, like, if you don't have that, even if it's a fairly insignificant image, like a decorative image, and you don't have alt text on it, the problem with that is sure that image isn't terribly important, but as a blind person coming to the website, I don't know that that's unimportant, right? It could be that giant sales banner, right? Because, again, if you don't have alt text, you have no idea what it is. And so, so it is important, even in those contexts to make sure that a insignificant decorative image is, is marked with well, in according to the WCAG is marked with a no alt attribute, just quote space quote with no spaces in between it. No, quote, quote, with no spaces in between. That's, that's what I meant to say. Yeah. Yeah, you you want
Hiram Kuykendall 36:49
to do in word WordPress, WordPress. WordPress is usually there's usually some kind of checkbox that says mark this as a decorative image, and it's taking care of the scene. So you either put alternate text, you check the box, and magic will happen behind this.
Tom Hagy 37:01
Well, just, just just to be clear, I always add it. Just I was pretending
Ken Nakata 37:08
because of because of the plaintiff's attorneys out there.
Tom Hagy 37:13
Including ones I love and who are my customers. But no, I know, I see why. But, frankly, when I was doing it, at first, I wasn't sure why am I doing this? Exactly. But no, I mean, I acute in pretty quickly that that's why I was doing it. In fact, I'll be doing it with the images of the two of you when we promote this podcast. So I think you'll find, you know, it's very important that we say this is Kennecott, etc. picture of him.
Hiram Kuykendall 37:39
Well, there's one other, I'm going to take a little bit a minute to do advocacy, right? What is the ADEA? And what is the Rehabilitation Act? What laws are those? These are civil rights laws? They are they are, they are fundamental to the way we believe that inclusion in the US should work. So there is a big picture here, you know, when people when I run into people, that that, you know, say, Do I have to do this, how many blind people are actually going to use my website? It's a little bit like saying, Yeah, I have to let minorities into a program and higher education. women really need the right to them. You know, I mean, it's insulting. If
Tom Hagy 38:28
the answer's yes. in case anybody's wondering, yeah, okay, there we
Hiram Kuykendall 38:31
go. We, you know, I feel like Ken and I will have succeeded, when people are a little bit insulted by a website that is not accessible. Right, those things I said, were horrible, inflammatory things that I do not believe. But I if I told you how my website has accessibility problems, you wouldn't go. Hiram, that's, that's crazy. Why wouldn't you do that? Right, you would not have that visceral response that you would to those other things, and I feel like we will have succeeded when people are a little more insulted by by things that that are inherently exclusionary.
Tom Hagy 39:16
I had the speaking of the Supreme Court, though, I had the pleasure of interviewing the first blind attorney to argue to the Supreme Court. And, and she was, she was very, and she won, by the way. But she was she got actually a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, who gets back the and she, it first when I was talking to her about it, I said, this is, you know, arguing the Supreme Court is kind of a big deal in your career, and she was sort of cool about it at first. Yeah, that was it was cool, whatever. But as I got talking to her, she got more and more excited about it. That I was standing in the spot where my heroes are arguing, and I'm just feet away from you know, other you know, And, and in machi said Though, interestingly, the Supreme Court is not set up to be accessible for blind attorneys. So, you know, they had to, they had to rig some things like, because there's a timer. You know, you have so much time when he argued Supreme Court, and it's you can't see the timer. Right. So they had a I don't know if it was a marshal or somebody would ring a bell or something. So there were accommodations made. And there are certain ways that showing my ignorance, I didn't realize that you even took notes using braille. I just thought it was strictly reading. But so she anyway, she has a little accommodations there. But she was very, very excited. And now she's taken a taking a job with the administration and EEOC. But anyway, it was it was a, it was a historic moment, and a huge personal moment for her. So I thought I'd just share that was very cool. The wait a minute, what about my podcast?
Hiram Kuykendall 41:01
For that still? Are we done?
Tom Hagy 41:05
No, I don't mean interviewing you. I mean, just in general, I like to get one of the advantages of doing this podcast is I like to get advice, but this is not legal advice. For anybody listening. If you're getting your legal advice from a podcast, you're you have bigger problems. But so should my podcast. Should I have offer a transcript?
Hiram Kuykendall 41:23
Yes, you better? Yes. Right. Right. When are you gonna file suit when you get back?
Tom Hagy 41:29
Right. Okay. Well, you know what, I've been doing it. And then I'm now having this conversation thinking I shouldn't just do it just because I want to do something with the transcript. But obviously, I should be doing it. So
Hiram Kuykendall 41:41
literally violating the WCAG. No, I'm
Tom Hagy 41:44
not I'm actually doing that.
Hiram Kuykendall 41:46
Had you had you? Had you gone to the seven things you need to know about doing a podcast? I am sure it's put out a transcript? Well, look, I will make a bet with you that if you go how to put on a podcast, it will have nothing in there about accessibility? Er, hell,
Tom Hagy 42:05
yeah. Well, well, if you've changed my practice, I will now always do the podcast or always do the transcripts. Because you can do them automatically. They're not always clean. But so now we know, I will be doing it. And I'll be doing one, especially for this one. But so we'll go from there. Isn't there also well, this is a separate thing. But I think sometimes you doing the right thing also has other advantages. So I have a feeling when you have cuz I know having a transcript, it's actually easier for people in general to find your podcast, because of SEO issues and things like that. So
Hiram Kuykendall 42:43
you get a lot of so when you follow accessibility, Google will rank you higher, right? Your information is better structured. So it can make sense of it. Headings are way, you know, Microsoft Word how you can, if you want to call some out, you can bold and decrease the font that is not semantically marked up. You can use headings in word that has two advantages. One, you've made a visual representation, but I as assistive technology user, I can navigate by those headings, the same way that a sighted person can visually navigate. It's about equivalency. It's about providing the same experience.
Tom Hagy 43:22
Absolutely. Gotcha. Okay,
Hiram Kuykendall 43:25
I'll get off that soapbox.
Tom Hagy 43:26
No, no, no, it's we need the soap. And we need the box. So the so Alaska, we're extremely leading question. But do you think attorneys and in house counsel know enough about accessibility? Can you want to deliberately
Ken Nakata 43:39
not? They do not. I mean, just looking at the membership of the eye WAP versus the IA PP, the International Association of privacy professionals is telling because if you look at the IW, AP membership, the eye AAP, the International Association of accessibility professionals, it's all developers and technical people. If you look at the International Association of privacy professionals, and membership is about 95% attorneys. It's shocking. So I do think that and the funny thing is that, I think that in terms of being black and white and legal, and in terms of, you know, important civil rights issues, the the Idabel the standards around accessibility are clear. It's much more enforceable. It's, it's, it's so much better. Anyways, the other problem is that attorneys tend to think of accessibility more as an HR and legal and technical issue and not so much as a legal issue. And so, at the end of the day, I just get this feeling. Yeah. You know, it's like Ronnie Daingerfield we just don't get bleakest don't get respect. Right? And accessibility. Yeah. So now we there's not enough. attorneys don't know enough about accessibility.
Hiram Kuykendall 45:10
Right? Yeah. We, so we work with these attorneys, right. So generally, when we get engaged, whether it's public or private, frequently, we work straight for the general counselor for whatever whatever group it is, because what we do they want to protect a little bit as attorney client privilege, so we get a little more interaction, perhaps with that with that group. And here's the way I divided up title two, there is more awareness, just because there's so much going on, and there's so many laws, could they know more? Absolutely. But on title two, I kind of feel like we've got a little bit of footing. Now. Title Three large companies? Well, yeah, a big company, I'm just gonna throw out a name at random. Salesforce is a big company, they're into accessibility, I would argue that their attorneys would have a better understanding of Title Three, and as well as Title One, and I mean, all the other laws, because they're, they're like, you know, they're almost like your general practitioner. Doctor, right? When you go in, you don't need to be an expert in it. But you do need to know when you're when you're, you're getting into trouble. So large companies, I think the ones that I have dealt with, have had better knowledge perfect, no, but enough to know that when they need to bring in the specialist, mom and pop shops, small to midsize companies, nothing, nothing, because that's not what the company is interested companies in intellectual property the company is interested in. You know, there's a whole host of things, and none of which are really centered around accessibility. So like I said, when people come to us frequently, they're surprised. And what they're looking for is information on why what is this gap in my knowledge? So I do I completely agree with Ken. On Title Three for not for the non fortune 500 That that yeah, there's a tremendous gap.
Tom Hagy 47:09
Yeah. Yeah. So the so in addition to podcasts, who should be educating companies? So then other better ways to do this? You guys have thoughts on getting more companies and more attorneys, etc? up to speed?
Ken Nakata 47:26
Gosh, I mean, I think that that's where the plaintiff's attorneys have been quite good. Because they now now I think defense counsel and risk management officers are thinking some of them are some of the more progressive ones are thinking in terms of, well, gosh, you know, my client just got sued. Maybe I should tell my other clients that, that they may get sued under this. So that's helping. But again, I mean, if DOJ came out with regulations, that that would definitely put it on their radar, because now it's actually a written legal requirement that's in the Code of Federal Regulations. And they have something that you can definitely point to and say, Okay, well, now we've got to meet it.
Tom Hagy 48:13
They've got to listen to you can.
Hiram Kuykendall 48:16
Very good, right. And I would just, I would just be
Ken Nakata 48:19
personally Yes, that's right.
Hiram Kuykendall 48:23
Please, please get on his blog. He's got wonderful information. I will, I will reiterate. The Tom needs to answer Sean Hill, I will reiterate that what we have is a PR problem. People do not know people do not run to the laws when they're opening a business. They run online to the internet, and they Google search the seven things I need to know. And so I completely agree with Ken, if you add a technical specification can't make the only thing don't get me wrong. You don't say, Oh, we do WCAG two, all right now we don't do anything else that would be devastating for the accessibility community. For people with disabilities, that would be a terrible thing. But if you were to add it in, I think of it as the floor. Okay. So we have general general non discrimination and we have effective communication at the top and the floor is the WCAG, two a level double A, if you put that in. And that's the PR point, we need to make sure that this is getting out there in the, in the general blogosphere, and on these seven things you need to know. And attorneys can reference it and point to it. Because if if attorney was to come to me and say, Hey, are you sure you're adhering to effective communication? What, you know, if you come in and say, Hey, are you hearing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? At least I go, Well, what is that? That's something I can look up. Oh, there's all these success criteria. I better go meet with the technical people and see what's going on. Right. A technical specification will lead you down a road, where a concept of in franchising an individual or excluding an individual is, it's just a much harder concept to put out. Okay, that makes sense.
Tom Hagy 50:19
It makes sense. Ken, does it make sense to make sense?
Hiram Kuykendall 50:24
Navigating for attending, hey, I don't care what other words you put around it, just put it in there.
Ken Nakata 50:29
Put it in relation out there. That's what I that's what that's my bottom line.
Tom Hagy 50:33
Well, do you think the regulations will guidelines and regulations? You think the we're going to create more liability? Well, I guess you mentioned plaintiff attorneys, you think it's going to result in more litigation?
Ken Nakata 50:47
Well, you know, I like to think of it as like looking at the wooden the ADEA was originally passed, they thought that, oh, gosh, defense counsel and companies around the country, we're saying, Oh, my God, all those people with disabilities are going to be suing us like crazy. And their plaintiff attorneys are just going to be going nuts. It's going to create a huge industry of litigation. And yeah, it did for sure. In the short term. Yeah, there's always going to be a little bit of an uptick in litigation. Although right now, there's such a huge groundswell of it, because there's vagueness, which is just like, you know, that's blood in the water, to, to plaintiff's attorneys. But once those become normalized, it's going to settle down. I mean, just because companies are just going to do the thing, they're going to company websites are going to be a lot more accessible, it's gonna be a lot harder, I think, to find these accessibility problems. Right now, you could just the way in which these plaintiff attorneys usually find their websites is that they use an audit these automated testing tools to just wrap to go through hundreds of websites, and then they file a complaint against every one of them. If the basic things are taking care of like the, you know, the the alt text on images was taken care of, if we took care of form labels, to make sure that they're accessible, then it's going to make it a lot harder to find those things. Then litigations just naturally going to go down.
Tom Hagy 52:20
Okay. Well, we'll talk to me about you mentioned these auto testing tools. What about companies themselves auditing their own sites? I assume you recommend that and, you know, in, in how, how do they do it? How do they audit their sites? How often should they audit their sites? Any thoughts on that? Making sure you're in compliance?
Hiram Kuykendall 52:42
Okay. All right. So that's what we do. Well, go
Tom Hagy 52:46
ahead. You don't have to do a whole commercial. But seriously, you can tell us. Tell us what you do. What is it you
Hiram Kuykendall 52:52
guys don't get? So this is harm? Okay. So I'm sorry. That's okay. You said can you do the chain of question to kill me? W. So when you saw here, here's, here's the thing. When we audit, we use automated and manual testing techniques. Because automated testing techniques can catch 30 to 50% of errors, even the companies with the most grandiose assertion, say we can detect 70% of accessibility issues. So, Tom, when you were in school, what grade did you get on? If you make 50? If you made a 50 on a test? That's an app. Yeah, you did? Yeah. That's an F. Right?
Tom Hagy 53:37
I'm very familiar with that. Yeah.
Hiram Kuykendall 53:40
I didn't mean to bring up any trauma. Thanks. So. So the only way to get the other 50% is to test using the same assistive technologies as somebody with a disability would use. Now that is yes, that is using a screen reader that somebody who's blind would use, but you know what, it's also just using the keyboard to use the application of the website. That's what somebody with a mobility challenge, who can't use a mouse would use is checking to make sure that the color contrast is sufficient. So somebody who is colorblind or has color deficiency can see it, it's the same thing is its use of color. So let's say we have two buttons, red and green. Red means stop green means go if I'm colorblind, I can't I can't test for that. So it is this, it is a a big tapestry of things that we have to test and it is encapsulated for the most part in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Now, to go back to something we said earlier, which is the DOJ is putting a toe in the water with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. And I believe some of the questions that they're going to ask in that safe environment is that you know, like, at what point is a website or app considered to be accessible? It can't be 100% There's no such thing as 100% I can go into any website. I don't care how It is that I can twist something into a into into a wick accelerator. So if it's not 100%, then what is it? And then, you know, it's other issues that can alluded to, is there going to be a safe harbor period? You know, so we're going to issue these new rules, do we need to give people a chance to do that? What about you know, and in certainly in title two, we have the concept of undue burden, I guess in Title Three, all stuff we do, we do have, but undue burden it to what extent making something accessible, resulted in a hardship. And then third party content, let's say it's something that I've included on my site that I didn't create, I've either linked it in there, or I've included it in what we call an iframe. We've been we've it's somebody else's, but it's looks like it's part of my page, what are my obligations with those? So those are very hard questions that even if we took the WCAG, and we slapped it in today, those things would still exist out there. But I'm still with Kid advocating, let's do that. Let's put that in there. I don't, you know, I think there would have to be, I think you would have to have a little bit of a safe harbor period, while we kind of figure that out and get the word out, right. This isn't for me, this is about publicity. For me, this is about getting people to understand this as a requirement. And why it's or you know, why we, as a society believe it's important.
Ken Nakata 56:24
Yeah, I agree completely. I mean, the DOJ came out with regulations that they would be, I believe that it would be foolhardy of them to just say, as of the date, we came up with these regulations, all your websites have to be have to comply with WCAG, 2.1, a and double A, it, they have to give, I believe, you know, a grace period. So with the way in which they typically do that is by the effective date of the regulation. So they could say the effective date of this new regulation is, I don't know, six months from now. And then all of a sudden that off, that'll cause his minor little freak out in, in the web world with, with the attorneys, and they say, Oh, my God, what do we do? And then all of a sudden, the content management systems are going to suddenly have to come up with an answer because their phone is going to be ringing off the hook. And so and they're gonna lose all their customers. And so you obviously have to start building in tools that make it super easy to create accessible content. And then by the time that the effective date comes around, hopefully, that that'll give enough of a push, so that suddenly it's going to be a lot easier to make accessible content. But that's it. But DOJ has got to come up with that regulation. Otherwise, that'll never happen. That freakout will never happen. And that freakout is kind of important.
Tom Hagy 57:59
freakout leads to change.
Ken Nakata 58:01
Yes, absolutely. freakout leads to chance,
Hiram Kuykendall 58:02
let me let me just let me just riff on on kins kins thing that he just said, we work with a lot of companies. And here's the way a product comes to market. Somebody has an idea. They've somehow cobbled together some funding, they're trying to get the functionality put together to get this thing sold, accessibility, nowhere on the horizon, right. So they're putting this thing together. Hopefully it works. It's not accessible, they get it out of the market. And for the next couple of years, they're selling this thing as hard as they can. And accessibility is nowhere on their radar. It's not until they go to sell to state, federal, or an institution of higher education, or K 12, that accessibility even comes up and they're like holy cow, our product, we've never even considered that. Now I've got to make this investment into fixing that. If you follow Ken's advice, and you get this darn thing in the beginning, then hopefully when these people are creating these products in the beginning, the legal counsel or somebody in try, the organization will say hey, look, yeah, we got marketing, and we're gonna have to pay taxes. But I have this other bullet on the seven things I needed to know about starting an online product. And apparently accessibility is one of them. What is that? What is his Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? What is this title three thing that I need to know about? It's not a conversation, you're not a piece of the private sector on product development.
Tom Hagy 59:35
I think that's about I think we've covered everything. Is there anything else that you guys wanted to address? I think you did a good job going through everything. I think we're in good shape.
Hiram Kuykendall 59:45
We're doing the three takeaways. Oh, I
Tom Hagy 59:48
know I just asked for them. Do you have them? Oh, what? Okay, go. I know. Yeah, go ahead. What do you have? What do you have are the three the key takeaways I Are you?
Hiram Kuykendall 1:00:00
Okay? So I, here's my three takeaways for title three entities meeting with egg to a level Debbie lay is effectively your best defense against litigation even though the rules do not specify it. I believe that wholeheartedly. For title two entities, you need to be aware that you are required to address the needs of individuals, independent of the technical specifications. This will be contrary to your internal policies and procedures, as specified technical specifications such as with CAG, two Oh, plus exemptions, and exclusions, such as fundamental alterations and undue burden. You still have to have an accommodation plan, you can't wave your hand and say this is these are not the droids you're looking for. Or these are not the accessibility rules. And then my third one is guidance on the web accessibility ADA. The clearest description of the standards they use is in the guidance. Let me try that again. Let me do that three second pause for you. Thank you. So the guidance on web accessibility under the DOJ is purview is in that guidance document. And it's general non discrimination and effective communication. So right now, you do need to understand that the needs of the individual is how the DOJ would come in and evaluate an organization under Title two or title three. And that the WCAG is a recommendation and one we support. But we always have to go back to it's the needs of the individual that are going to trump everything, right. But we do believe that following at least on the technical components, WCAG, two a level double A would be a super way to start. Excellent.
Ken Nakata 1:02:06
I guess my only take away right now is that people are obviously going to be freaking out trying to figure out oh, my gosh, DOJ is coming up with regulations, what are they going to look like? And those regulations are ultimately going to look like the guidance that's already out there. Because, you know, create guidance and a year later come up with regulations that says that say something different.
Tom Hagy 1:02:31
Makes sense. So tell me just a little bit, I just want to I'll wrap it up. But I give you a minute to tell us about your services, you know, so, so Hiram, you you, if you could give us a kind of a snapshot and then can like your elevator, what is it you guys do your organization's? Well,
Hiram Kuykendall 1:02:51
I'm happy to go first. So hi, I'm Kirk and I worked with Microsoft, our accessibility division. We work with organizations that are trying to create governance structures that accessibility policies, procurement policies, wherever and the few organizations that like procurement, which makes us weird people. We also work with people that are currently under litigation or need to have audits done. So we do accessibility testing using manual automated techniques. We also, this is my funny little way of putting this. We help organizations create voluntary product accessibility templates, which are required for your selling to, to federal or state or local governments, and now a little bit more in the private sector. And then we work with those organizations to actually read and interpret the V. Pat's. So we show vendors where to bury the bodies, and then we show Oregon, you know, the organizations that are buying were to dig them up. So
Tom Hagy 1:03:57
okay, well, that's probably cut that yeah, that's grim. That's just a grim metaphor. Please don't need that. What is what is it about procurement? You said? just elaborate on that for me? What do you do there?
Hiram Kuykendall 1:04:10
Okay. So, sir, certainly in the public sector, federal and state entities are required to purchase the most accessible products they can and as long conversations, I'm going to shortcut it. So they're required to procure the most accessible products, again, if they're purchasing products that are that have gaps that are not accessible to everybody, then they have obligations to plan for the inclusion of that of that technology. So we work with vendors to create what's called an accessibility conformance report based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, which used the WCAG and section 508 to describe how accessible their product is and And we work with a lot of public institutions to interpret those documents so they can bring it in, in a manner that will have the least impact for people with disabilities.
Tom Hagy 1:05:16
Gotcha. That's helpful. All right, so can can, what about you? So your former, formerly with the DOJ, according to your bio, you've worked in this area for at least 30 years. And you have in you have a passion for technology, etc. So tell me about what what your organization you and your organization do.
Ken Nakata 1:05:35
Yeah. So Yeah. With regard to my Justice Department, background, which I think you're alluding to, yeah, I was one of the first attorneys to join the Disability Rights section, whenever known by some other names, they would call the office on the Americans with Disabilities back back, back in 1992, which is God 30 years ago. And, yeah, we were, we're just tiny little band of six attorneys who are enforcing the ADEA for the whole country. It's kind of crazy. Anyways, nice job though, since then, thinking. So since then, I, you know, after spending a bunch of years at the Justice Department, and then a bunch of years as a consultant for various companies, I finally decided, oh, you know, I was kind of dreading the idea of doing this. But my business partner and I Jeff's Jeff Singleton's, my business partner, my business partner, and I just decided to create our own company, to help companies with their web accessibility in large. And we're a small company, but we do manual testing, we also perform automated testing for, for companies on web accessibility. But I think that our so you're thinking, okay, so what Brembo? How do we How, what's our unique place in the market, what distinguishes us, and I think that it's the the legal aspect of things. So we also work with a lot of attorneys, but we work with attorneys that are that have a lot of that have some questions about how they should handle their litigation. And so the things that we do is, in addition to just, you know, doing the regular testing, and like a lot of other companies, we also advise them on very, very, very legal issues. And so for instance, like, if a, if you're, if someone files a complaint against you, can we get the complaint dismissed because the plaintiff lacks standing to sue, or, and we look at the allegations that are in the complaint, and we look at the person's disability, and we say, you know, do these things really line up? And if they don't, then here's your legal argument in terms of, of having the case dismissed? Or, you know, the some of the other things that we do is we try to make sure that, because our reports potentially can be discoverable. You know, we make sure that we go through all the steps to make sure that yes, this thing is subject to privilege. So that, you know, the report that we hand over to our client just doesn't end up being a roadmap to litigate against them down the road, things like that. So that's, and we also make sure that because of my background, you know, that the that we advise our the attorneys that are working with us exactly what their legal obligations are, because a lot of them are newbies when it comes to the ADA and UNWRA. So yeah, we do a lot of hand holding attorneys. Okay. So we can't get legal advice directly, of course, because even though I'm an attorney, and I'm still an active member of several bars, I can't do that, because I'm not hope I'm not directly providing legal support, because that would be considered providing legal services. And there are a whole bunch of picky and little rules around that. And for the fact that I'm in partnership with a person who's not an attorney, in this company, it creates all sorts of legal issues. So anyways, so I can't do that, but I can certainly advise other attorneys.
Tom Hagy 1:09:22
Okay. All right. Well, I'm not an attorney, but for years, I was a legal publisher, and I was always getting questions, and I would just dispense legal advice. Just, you can't just, you can't disbar me because I'm not. I'm not I'm not an attorney. So my favorite question is, can we sue for this? Like, of course you can. Will you? Will you win? Well, anyway, so Ken Akata, Hiram Kirkland doll. Thank you very much for speaking with me today.All right, well, I will get back to you with the audio And the transcript of this,
Hiram Kuykendall 1:10:02
it's gonna be hard editing, you're gonna be shopping nothing.
Tom Hagy 1:10:07
I'm freelancing, that and it's not gonna be. It'll be easy. It'll be easy to do, guys. Thank you very much, Ken, thanks for getting up in the middle of what I consider the middle of the night to do that.
Ken Nakata 1:10:20
I keep you know, I really do keep attorney hours. So I would have gotten up at 10am today, that's when the alarm would have gone off.
Tom Hagy 1:10:27
God, is that attorney hours? Is that right? Okay, guys, hey, thanks. Yeah, well, thanks. Well, you know, in the spirit of education, let's see how many people we can get to listen to this and, and I will do an accompanying article on it too. So people can also read it. And of course, we'll give that to you to to prove too, just to be sure we capture everything correctly. Okay. Guys, thank you very much. My dog stayed asleep. My dog stayed asleep to this entire thing. I don't know what that says.
Hiram Kuykendall 1:10:57
Our information was riveting.
Ken Nakata 1:11:01
I was gonna ask you about that Tom. Wasn't a dog I saw crawling around in the background.
Tom Hagy 1:11:07
English Cocker Spaniel, shallow, shallow. We're gonna go for a walk, Shiloh. He's getting, he's getting like, go for a walk, buddy. We'll go for a walk. Okay, let's go.
Hiram Kuykendall 1:11:17
He keeps attorney hours. It's only just now waking up. It was really good doing this with you. I've been a big fan. I remember when you put out some of that first. That first guidance and the webpages that you put out, man, we use that for years. So a little bit of fan thing here going on. Thanks. Yeah, I do. I do greatly. I appreciate the time spent with you on this.
Ken Nakata 1:11:42
Yeah, we should definitely meet up during this when we finally get to go to them.
Hiram Kuykendall 1:11:50
Getting jack out of Jack is just a machine and I just I don't see him going to a lot of conferences now. He's he's just he's busy with what he's doing. And it's been successful and with the with the post COVID model. Oh, really?
Ken Nakata 1:12:06
Yeah. Okay. I was like I was expecting you to tell me that Jack was just sad. And
Hiram Kuykendall 1:12:16
Mr. Bostonian, said mournfully, yes. Many states but sad and mournful are never gonna never give me those. But anyway, well, hey, no, it was really it was just fun time anytime, kid. You know, hell, we should probably do business together. We don't compete. We do not dispense legal advice. We do not we attorneys like Like, say fourth or you know, we you know, I mean, we get brought in, you know, so there might be something there. Yeah.
Tom Hagy 1:12:45
All right, guys. Good. Well, have a good rest of the day. Okay, we'll be in touch. Bye. Bye. Bye.