W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: LIFT Text Transcoder

From: Cynthia Waddell <cynthia.waddell@icdri.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:41:23 -0800
To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>, "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBECLDKOGKHEKBAEEANNMEMAEGAA.cynthia.waddell@icdri.org>
Hello-
>From the U.S. legal analysis point of view, both the ADA and Section 504 are
"informed" by the Section 508 Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards on how to provide effective communication and
delivery of information in a timely matter.

Perhaps a url that readily comes to mind regarding this point is the U.S.
Department of Justice memo on the Accessibility of State and Local
Government websites.  Take a look at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/websites2.htm.   Remember, State higher
education institutions are also covered under this memo.

There is also case law that applies the ADA to government web sites and
points to Section 508 as the remedy.  I am attaching the court order in the
Marta case specifically ordering the transportation agency to conform their
website to Section 508.  When the case was initially filed, I discussed it
at http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/martandlr.htm.

Best regards,
Cynthia Waddell


--------------------------------------
Cynthia D. Waddell, JD
Executive Director and
Law, Policy and Technology Consultant
International Center for Disability Resources
   on the Internet (ICDRI)
Phone:  (408) 691-6921

ICDRI is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina USA
www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/cynthia_waddell.htm

See my new book!
Constructing Accessible Web Sites
www.icdri.org/constructing_accessible_web_site.htm

Is your Site Accessible?
Find out now with Cynthia Says! http://www.cynthiasays.com
Endorsed by the American Council of the Blind,
the Cynthia SaysTM portal is a joint Education
and Outreach project of ICDRI, The Internet
Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter,
and HiSoftware.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Access Systems
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:50 PM
To: Phill Jenkins
Cc: WAI Interest Group; w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder



On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> Bob said:
> "... and to
> determine what is appropriate compliance it turns to the ATBCB for
> guidance and they reference back to section 508 and W3C/WAI level 3"
>
> Can you provide a specific URL web reference where is says or implies
> this?

no.  but if someone is sued for non compliance for access to a site based
on 504 or ADA where do you think they go to for guidance.???

in the USA there are really only two places that are "independent" and
that is the Board and W3C/WAI      there are no "official" links that I am
aware of.

Bob

>
> When I reviewed the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
> Board (a.k.a. U.S. Access Board) site, I find no links between 504 and
> 508, nor any text implying the 508 Subpart B Technical standards [see Note
> 1] apply to 504, ADA, or anything else.  In fact the new ADA guidelines
> only mention 508 as applying to ATM machines that the federal government
> may purchase.  Your comment about W3C/WAI level 3 is specifically
> mentioned as NOT being included in 508 except for the one specific
> requirement about skipping to main content [see note 3 & 4]
>
> Note 1 U.S. Access Board 508 Web requirements 1194.22 a-p
>         http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm#Subpart_b
>
> Note 2 ADA guidelines (July 23, 2004)
>         http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm
>
> Note 3 Skip navigation links
>         http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(o)
>
> Note 4 Preamble discussing the scope and comments submitted on the
> technical standards:
>         http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/preamble.htm#Subpart%20B
>
> Note 4 is quoted below:
> ...
> the EITAAC had recommended that the Board ... directly reference priority
> one and two checkpoints of the World Wide Web Consortiums' (W3C) Web
> Accessibility Initiative's (WAI) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
> (WCAG 1.0). Rather than reference the WCAG 1.0, ... this final rule
> include provisions which are based generally on priority one checkpoints
> of the WCAG 1.0...
> Comment. A number of comments were received from the WAI and others
> expressing concern that the Board was creating an alternative set of
> standards that would confuse developers as to which standards should be
> followed. WAI was further concerned that some of the provisions and
> preamble language in the NPRM were inaccurate. On the other hand, a number
> of commenters, including the ACB and several members of the EITAAC,
> supported the manner in which web access issues were addressed in the
> proposed rule.
> Response. The final rule does not reference the WCAG 1.0. However, the
> first nine provisions in 1194.22, paragraphs (a) through (i), incorporate
> the exact language recommended by the WAI in its comments to the proposed
> rule or contain language that is not substantively different than the WCAG
> 1.0 and was supported in its comments.
> Paragraphs (j) and (k) are meant to be consistent with similar provisions
> in the WCAG 1.0, however, the final rule uses language which is more
> consistent with enforceable regulatory language. Paragraphs (l), (m), (n),
> (o), and (p) are different than any comparable provision in the WCAG 1.0
> and generally require a higher level of access or prescribe a more
> specific requirement.
> The Board did not adopt or modify four of the WCAG 1.0 priority one
> checkpoints. These include WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1 which provides that web
> pages shall "[c]learly identify changes in the natural language of a
> document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions)."; 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."; WCAG 1.0
> Checkpoint 1.3 which provides that "[u]ntil user agents can automatically
> read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory
> description of the important information of the visual track of a
> multimedia presentation."; and WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.2 which provides that
> web pages shall "[e]nsure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated
> when the dynamic content changes."
> Section 1194.23(c)(3) of the proposed rule required that web pages alert a
> user when there is a change in the natural language of a page. The
> "natural language" referred to the spoken language (e.g., English or
> French) of the web page content. The WAI pointed out that the preamble to
> the NPRM misinterpreted this provision. The preamble suggested that a
> statement such as "the following paragraph is in French" would meet the
> provision. WAI responded by noting that this was not the intent of the
> provision. The WCAG 1.0 recommend that web page authors embed a code or
> markup language in a document when the language changes so that speech
> synthesizers and Braille displays could adjust output accordingly.
> The Trace Center advised that only two assistive technology programs could
> interpret such coding or markup language, Home Page Reader from IBM and
> PwWebspeak from Isound. These programs contain the browser, screen reading
> functions, and the speech synthesizer in a single highly integrated
> program. However, the majority of persons who are blind use a mainstream
> browser such as Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator in conjunction
> with a screen reader. There are also several speech synthesizers in use
> today, but the majority of those used in the United States do not have the
> capability of switching to the processing of foreign language phonemes. As
> a result, the proposed provision that web pages alert a user when there is
> a change in the natural language of a page has been deleted in the final
> rule.
> 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.
> The Board did not adopt WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 1.3 which provides that
> "[u]ntil user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a
> visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information
> of the visual track of a multimedia presentation." Although the NPRM did
> not propose addressing this issue in the web section, there was a similar
> provision in the multi-media section of the NPRM.
> The Board did not adopt WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.2 which provide that web
> pages shall "[e]nsure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated
> when the dynamic content changes." The NPRM had a provision that stated
> "web pages shall update equivalents for dynamic content whenever the
> dynamic content changes." The WAI stated in its comments that there was no
> difference in meaning between the NPRM and WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.2. The
> NPRM provision has been deleted in the final rule as the meaning of the
> provision is unclear.
> A web site required to be accessible by section 508, would be in complete
> compliance if it met paragraphs (a) through (p) of these standards. It
> could also comply if it fully met the WCAG 1.0, priority one checkpoints
> and paragraphs (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) of these standards. A Federal
> web site that was in compliance with these standards and that wished to
> meet all of the WCAG 1.0, priority one checkpoints would also have to
> address the WAI provision regarding using the clearest and simplest
> language appropriate for a site's content (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.1), the
> provision regarding alerting a user when there is a change in the natural
> language of the page (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1), the provision regarding
> audio descriptions (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 1.3), and the provision that web
> pages shall "ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when
> the dynamic content changes (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.2).
> The Board has as one of its goals to take a leadership role in the
> development of codes and standards for accessibility. We do this by
> working with model code organizations and voluntary consensus standards
> groups that develop and periodically revise codes and standards affecting
> accessibility. The Board acknowledges that the WAI has been at the
> forefront in developing international standards for web accessibility and
> looks forward to working with them in the future on this vitally important
> area. However, the WCAG 1.0 were not developed within the regulatory
> enforcement framework. At the time of publication of this rule, the WAI
> was developing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. The Board
> plans to work closely with the WAI in the future on aspects regarding
> verifiability and achievability of the Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 2.0.
> ...
>
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
> http://www.ibm.com/able
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named







Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 23:41:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT