RE: New Guideline proposal

Dear Anne et al.

The EITAAC recommended that 508 use all the P1 and P2 WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
This advice was not headed primarily because the Access Board could only
require items which were useable within a "regulatory enforcement
framework."

If you want to see substantive provision for cognitively disabled folks in
an updated version of 508, you will need to craft a standard that is
unambiguous and not require exceptions.

	<Q>The Board also did not adopt WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.1 which
provides that web pages shall ''[u]se the clearest and simplest language
appropriate for a site's content.''  While a worthwhile guideline, this
provision was not included because it is difficult to enforce since a
requirement to use the simplest language can be very subjective.</Q>

I would guess that NONE of the items currently in the WCAG 2.0 working draft
"Guideline 3: Design for ease of comprehension" would be satisfactory in
terms of appropriateness for 508.  None of them are terribly concrete.
Unless we do better -- and I don't believe that we can -- we have no logical
basis for hope that they might be adopted into an update of 508.

I would hazard a guess that the politicians who support 508 will continue to
do so, despite its inability to include the needs of all, especially the
cognitively disabled, from government-supported web accessibility.  Surely
most of the sponsors, and people who worked on the standards, were quite
aware that it would not be possible to make all E&IT systems accessible to
everyone all the time.  I would bet that the supporters of 508 have
confidence in the people doing the work and understand that while not
perfect, the results are very, very good.
Just my own opinion and not anything from my employer.
-- Bruce

> ----------
> From: 	Anne Pemberton
> Sent: 	Friday, March 30, 2001 4:33 PM
> To: 	Matt May; Jeff Isom; WCAG
> Subject: 	Re: New Guideline proposal was: Re: Some more thoughts re
> 3.3   etc.
> 
> Matt,
> 
> 	My understanding was that 508 was based on P1 level of Guidelines
> 1.0, not
> the version currently under discussion. There were no substantive
> provisions for cognitively disabled in version 1.0. It is my sincere hope
> that version 2 will correct that oversight and allow 508 to be updated
> accordingly. 
> 
> 	I wonder if the politicians who support 508 would have done so if
> they'd
> any glimmer of an idea that any group, especially the cognitively
> disabled,
> are dis-included from government-supported web accessibility?  
> 
> 						Anne