W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: section 508 flaw?

From: Carla <carla@accesscapable.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:23:11 +0100
To: "'Jonathan Avila'" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAALSfXlmXwIlNkECplI7sNTTCgAAAEAAAAE8pqFep5dZHgIyjQFHhKYQBAAAAAA==@accesscapable.com>
The same remark about keeping a website accessible is also applicable on
WCAG.

After investigating quite a number of websites being labeled "compliant",
one might notice this was a momentary event which is already invalidated
over time. Apparently both government and private organizations consider the
label more important, either required by regulations or for image reasons.
The investment is limited to evaluating. 

A part of the guidelines will never be forced by implementing software
modifications, but needs a constant awareness of the authors and explicit
change processes before publication. In a way, this relates to typical
maturity models such as CMM.


Carla
 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Verzonden: donderdag 9 februari 2012 3:33
Aan: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Onderwerp: RE: section 508 flaw?

Karen, the current Section 508 standards apply to all electronic and
information technology that is used, developed, maintained, or procured by
the US Federal government.  Thus, the use of E&IT that does not meet the
standards would be a technical violation.  However, the enforcement
mechanism is linked to "procurement" only and as your fiend points out
updates not always reevaluated for compliance.  I have worked with a
number of agencies that are very good about verifying updates and changes
and monitoring updates to websites -- but this seems to depend heavily on
how agencies implement Section 508.

The most recent advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) states the
same scope of the standards as "E201.1 Scope.  ICT that is procured,
developed, maintained, or used by agencies shall conform to these
requirements."

There is still time to comment on the ANPRM -- this is a good opportunity
to voice your concern over updates or modified ICT no longer complying
with the standards.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:08 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: section 508 flaw?




  Listers,
  I am sharing the below from a network administrator who works across
several
  platforms.
  She asked that I share it, as I am not grounded enough in what she
explains
  to comment.
  thoughts?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:27:59 -0500
> From: Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@SHELLWORLD.NET>
> Subject: section 508 flaw
>
> Revision control isn't in Section 508.  This means that an information
> product or utility covered by Section 508 once a complaint is
> processed gets made compliant and then the information product or
> utility can be modified by any number of updates which do not have to
> pass Section 508 complince checks and requirements.  That makes
> Section 508 in its current form pointless.  If a covered information
> product or utility within the Section 508 complaint process is put
> under Section 508 revision control and then sent out as a software or
> web page release, this loophole would then be closed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jude
> <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
> <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 13:23:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 February 2012 13:23:46 GMT