- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:59:29 -0500
- To: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
but 508 is only one of 30 things that a federal procurement officer must be concerned about when making a business procurement decision and even though that law has clear words, the results are quite fuzzy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "phoenixl" <phoenixl@sonic.net> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:23 AM Subject: Re: The two models of accessibility Hi, In the text of the bill reauthorizing 508 the section addressing accessibility says: SEC. 508. ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (a) REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.-- (1) ACCESSIBILITY.-- (A) DEVELOPMENT, PROCUREMENT, MAINTENANCE, OR USE OF ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.--When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service, shall ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that the electronic and information technology allows, regardless of the type of medium of the technology-- (i) individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and (ii) individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal department or agency to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities. the use of the word comparable would seem to indicate, at least for 508, that there isn't a concern about distinguishing between 'accessibility' and 'usable accessibility'. If a visually impaired person is 5 times longer in using some information/data than a sighted person, is that comparable? Scott
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 06:59:34 UTC