W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

FW: No JavaScript for previous page and print screen

From: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:53:58 -0500
Message-ID: <FC86023944FB1F48943B3B1CED11E0FC01DC400A@USRV-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

This dialogue is based on a common misperception of the law that is Section
508.  First of all, Section 508 is a procurement provision, meaning that it
operates in the acquisition process.  It does not apply to existing systems,
and it does not seem to apply to work done by Federal employees.  It
requires that the agency acquire accessible products if available and if not
an undue burden, and there are a number of other exceptions.  It is really
quite a weak law, luckily, in my view, because the requirements to be
accessible are so vague.  While I am very supportive of the goals of the
advocates of Section 508, and accessibility in general, I am very skeptical
that I or any one on this board could build accessible applications, if we
use the definitions flying regularly on this board.  Of course, most sites
can do much better at quite low cost.  

So, I doubt that federal law was violated by the White House, but I am not a
lawyer, and this law has not be adjudicated.  If it is, I wonder if it will
be struck down as unreasonably vague.

I really think the next point to apply pressure is to the developers of the
development tools, to have them build accessible web pages, to build in
validators, etc.

Regards,
Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: William R Williams [mailto:wrwilliams@fs.fed.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:45 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: No JavaScript for previous page and print screen



Well, if your concern is that the feds cannot get their act together on
this, you might as well contact the WhiteHouse as well:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030520-1.html
Data tables coded incorrectly --  1194.22 provision (g), (h)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/
No alternative for video --  1194.22 provision (a), (b)

. . . and these observations were based on a very quick review. Of course,
these violations of Section 508 are breaking the law. Plus, with 508, we're
not even talking about true accessibility.

My own agency has plenty of violations, as I've stated before, which means
we don't have our act together either. Much of the time, we cannot even
post a 1-page news release without someone thinking a pdf will suffice. And
now, as I prepare to assist with presenting a 400-page technical report on
the web (with plenty of tables & charts), planners want to post only pdf,
rtf documents because "going the extra mile" for a mark-up presentation is
not cost-effective. There's hardly any "wherewithall" on the fed's part
regarding accessible E&IT. Is rtf even a viable option for the web?

Bill Williams


I don't know who the heck made that rule"My organization only obligates us
to meet priority 1 of 508" but I will tell you this, I will be looking very
close at this site. The US Government did 508, adopted 508 set deadlines
that very few have taken seriously and the last time I checked, it must
follow its own rules. It is a shame that the government of these United
States can't even get their act together.
Who is in charge of the web at CDC. I am going to talk to them.

pegglegg
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 08:54:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:09 GMT