W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: US Sec. 508

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:51:01 -0400
Message-ID: <003b01bf9dcf$d959df00$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
i think the bigger issue is  - what is implementable, and everything in
Priority one pretty much is.  its a start.


----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: US Sec. 508


> We didn't do too badly.
>
> From about halfway down URL
> http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm
>
> <blockquote>
> The advisory committee recommended that the Board's standards reference
the
> World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative's (WAI)
(13)
> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, User Agent Accessibility Guidelines,
> and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, including requirements from
> priority levels one and two for each document.
>
> Rather than referencing the WAI guidelines, the proposed standards include
> provisions which are based generally on priority level one checkpoints of
> the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, as well as other agency
> documents on web accessibility and additional recommendations of the
> advisory committee. The Board's rephrasing of language from the Web
Content
> Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 in paragraph (c) of the proposed rule has not
> been reviewed by the W3C, since proposed rules are not made public until
> published in the Federal Register.
> </blockquote>
>
> It is nearly impossible to prevent entrenched bureaucracies from
re-writing
> something that someone else has composed perfectly well.  This tendency,
> coupled with the fact that the Access Board is addressing accessibility
> issues for diverse systems (of which web content is only a small part)
means
> that it is hardly surprising that they wouldn't just reference the WCAG.
> IMHO, the reasonably prominent and explicit reference to the WCAG is
nothing
> short of a victory.  Given the practical implementation problems with many
> of the P2 checkpoints (which I have carped on before) it is quite
reasonable
> that they would focus on the P1 items instead.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bruce Bailey
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 5:13 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: US Sec. 508 [was: Re: FW: ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines
> > Notice of Proposed Rulemakin g]
> >
> >
> > The new 508 guidelines are out and they chose not to use the WCAG.   We
> > should talk about what the implications of this are.  There will
> > now be two
> > different sets of guidelines for what constitutes accessible web sites
or
> > pages.
> >
> > We should take a close look at the similarities and differences between
> > them.
> > We should also see if there is anything that should be added or removed
or
> > reworded in the 508 regs and get those in as comments.
> >
> > Should be interesting.
> >
> > Gregg
>
Received on Monday, 3 April 2000 21:52:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT