Re: 508 Accessibility Deadline

Jim,
Let me make a correction to your comment about the deadline.  The actual
deadline is 180 days from the date of the final standards.  180 days is
actually June 19, 2001.  I also feel your pain about the time
constraints.  It would be nice to have some time to learn.
Scott



"Fitzgerald, Jimmie" wrote:
> 
> As we've interpreted it, June 21st, 2001 is the deadline to be in compliance
> with the new 508 standards.  This being Feb 15th means that 56 days have
> already gone by.  Or, 31% to save everyone from doing that calculation.
> 
> It is disconcerting to see so many posts (mine included) that are still
> attempting to define some of the standards.  It appears that there are many
> things that are still not clear as far as implementation goes.  Confusion on
> the proper way to approach this or that.
> 
> The Final Rule of the 508 was not nearly detailed enough to simply
> implement.  Seems to me that they took a conceptual approach to
> accessibility and left the details to the development community to figure
> out.  The development folks are forced to learn quite a bit about assistive
> technologies before even starting on 508 compliance.
> 
> Some might argue that there were proposed rules prior to the final.  True,
> but, proposed rules are not final rules and to develop to them could have
> meant having to redo some percentage of our effort based on differences
> between the two.
> 
> Perhaps six months to bring the all of the federal government web sites into
> compliance is a bit optimistic.  Six months to learn what we need to learn,
> the "can do's" and "cannot do's" would have worked with another six months
> alloted for the actual implementation.
> 
> Jim Fitzgerald
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Kew [mailto:nick@webthing.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:09 PM
> To: Leonard R. Kasday
> Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Aaargh .. Whatever happened to Bobby?
> 
> [ posted back to original lists ]
> 
> Len has been kind enough to reprimand me privately for the tone
> of my posting.  I hereby apologise unconditionally for the
> confrontational tone, and will avoid it in future in these lists.
> 
> I do, however, stand by the substance of my posting, which seems
> to me an important issue.  I should add that I raised it here
> precisely because it seemed to me less damaging to do so in a
> forum that is relatively small and broadly sympathetic than in
> the Newsgroups, where it might serve to support those individuals
> who are openly opposed to accessibility.
> 
> --
> Nick Kew