Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

>> >> > ...  but I mention the Linux to
>> >> >illustrate that any solutions MUST be OS neutral and not depend on
>> >> >proprietary software that is not provided free.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand what free has to do meeting the 508 or W3C
standards.
>> I
>> >
>> >it does state in 508, that if something is required to view or use a
site
>> >a link must be provided to allow a download at no additional cost.
>>
>> The actual 508 standard only says: [1] "1194.22 (m) When a web page
>> requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the
>> client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to
a
>> plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l)."
>> Nothing there nor in the rest of the 508 guidance about "no additional
>> costs" except for the case of documentation.  So the 508 claim that
>> plug-ins must be provided at no additional costs is misinformation. Meet
>> the 508 software standards part - yes, free - no.
>>
>HOWEVER 28CFR36.301(c) states " a public accomodation shall not impose a
>surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of
>individuals with disabilities to coover the costs of measures such as the
>provision of auxiliiary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier
>removal and resonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures
>that are required to provide that individual or group with the
>nondiscrimanatory treatment required by the Act or this part"
>
>
>Sounds like free to me!

28CFR36.301(c) is not part of 508.  Is 28CFR36.301 part of the ADA code or
something else?  I suppose you're saying that 508 procured web sites are
public accommodations - so that means everyone must be able to access them
without surcharge.  So when a building is built with a standard ramp, the
wheelchair is also provided for free?  I don't buy this argument, but I'm
not a lawyer and don't want to debate the applicability of the legislation.
My point was that your statement about 508 was misinformation.

<clipped>
>
>Lynx is a text reader, Windows is not text it is a GUI.

Lynx is a so called text browser because it's output is text.  You still
need a magnifier, screen reader, or some other assistive technology to
complete the accessibility solution.  Windows, the OS, provides the text of
the GUI applications to the screen reader, magnifier, and other assistive
technologies - so I don't understand you point.

<clipped>

>> that it would be more cost effective to add JavaScript support to Lynx
than
>> to re-design all the sites that already use JavaScript.  JavaScript is
>
>sounds like "make em see, rather than provide em with accessible formats"
>doesn't fly
>
>Bob

What?  When Lynx supports JavaScript, the output would be available in the
accessible format of ASCII text that Lynx provides.  Today's assistive
technologies like HPR, JAWs, and others get the accessible format of text
from the OS, or from the browser, or from the DOM, and provide it to the
end user.

Phill

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:57:43 UTC