RE: 508 vs. W3C

To add to the overall noise... Canadian Federal sites must be compliant to
Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints from the WCAG by December 31st of this
year... (http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-upe/index_e.asp)

JF



>
> Dear All,
> The DDA states that websites should provide a service that is no
> less than that offered to non-disabled users, and it is assumed
> (as the UK government is yet to provide parameters for commercial
> sites) that single-A conformance is the minimum - judging by the
> RNIB (http://www.rnib.org.uk) campaign for accessible web design.
> However, if you look at the Guidelines for UK Government websites
> (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/guidelines/webguidelines/h
> andbook/handbookindex.htm) it will outline what the Government
> requires for its own sites and those of the public sector.
>
> Also, consider that the German administration has recently taken
> a further step and asked for double-A compliance as a minimum!
>
> Furthermore, I would have a look at Martin Sloan's take on the
> DDA in the UK, available at: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/sloan.html
>
> Having said all this, I would agree with Charles that double-A
> standard is a good target to aim for as a minimum, but if
> triple-A compliance is at all possible (even if not on all pages)
> then I would strive for that. I would also like to add the
> following: please, please, please validate your code and CSS.
>
> Good luck.
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
> Sent: 12 August 2002 17:47
> To: Michael R. Burks
> Cc: RUST Randal; WAI IG; 'Steve Vosloo'
> Subject: RE: 508 vs. W3C
>
>
>
> Well, what people do normally in this situation is consider the desires of
> their customers. WCAG Priority 1 and Section 508 are different -
> meeting WCAG
> triple-A conformance would cover you for Section 508 and satisfy the US
> requirements, but meeting single-A would not.
>
> I don't know the details of the UK Disability Discrimination Act, but I
> suspect it would not be satisfied by meeting section 508. I am
> fairly certain
> that the Australian equivalent act would not be satisfied by Section 508.
>
> My two cents worth of advice (and two cents in australia is now legally
> worthless) is to go for about WCAG double-A in your development and
> maintenance planning, and ensure that you meet Section 508 requirements
> immediately. This is becuase the 508 requirement isn't
> complaint-driven but
> rule driven, whereas I understand the UK act as being reactive.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Michael R. Burks wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >buy the book Constructing Accessible Web Sites which Jim Thatcher and
> >several others wrote.  It is published by Glasshous, a company in the UK,
> >and is available at: www.icdri.org/constructing_accessible_web_site.htm
> ========
> Steve had actually asked:
> >[snip]
> >needs to be made accessible. The pressure for accessibility is
> coming from
> >the US. I'd like to know what their options are ... do they:
> >
> >    1) Make the site 508 and WCAG Priority 1 compliant
> >
> >    2) Make it only 508 compliant. Will this satisfy the Disability
> >Discrimination Act of the UK?
> >
> >    3) Make it only WCAG Priority 1 compliant? Will this satisfy the US
> >pressure coming from the Federal funders of the site?
> >
> >    All input would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >    Thanks
> >    Steve
> >
> >    Steve Vosloo
> >    Division Manager
> >    Usability Junction
> >
> >    Tel:    + 27 (0) 21 409 7961
> >    Fax:   + 27 (0) 21 409 7050
> >    Cell:   + 27 (0) 83 463 0012
> >    Web:  www.usabilityjunction.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
> phone: +61 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax:
> +33 4 92 38 78 22
> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis
> Cedex, France)
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
> _____________________________________________________________________
>

Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 13:37:17 UTC