- From: William R Williams <wrwilliams@fs.fed.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:11:52 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hello, I have been a member of this mailing list -- primarily lurking -- for a couple of years now, off & on, and am always impressed by the knowledge(s) reflected in the postings to this list. Consequently, my hope in sending this message is that someone can provide genuine advice on how to best approach the whole issue of accessible website development in the (U.S) federal sector. I work as a "web developer" with a large agency in the U.S. federal government and feel quite fortunate to be involved in this work. It seems, however, as if my employer is only interested in giving "face value" importance to accessible web design and development. As you know, we are required to meet the provisions of Section 508 for accessible E&IT; yet, in advocating for compliance (and professional-level development), my job has been nothing short of a nightmare since June 2001, when the law took effect. I've been accused of "undermining" the web efforts, being "on a crusade," arrogant, striving for nirvana, or coding "web minutiae" (while implementing WCAG guidelines), and untold other derogatory statements have been hurled my way. Meanwhile, people have said that the need for tasks such as implementing "document structure" and using valid mark-up are subject to interpretation. The bottom line: I just don't understand the resistance, the pretentions -- and this has created an uncertainty, on my part, about what is and/or what is not, accessible information. For example, as an "agency," we take our lead from a "Department." The department's view of 508 can be gleaned at the URL cited below: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/irm/508/sec508.html Now, I ask you: are the files linked under the label "USDA's Method to Achieving Section 508 Compliance" accessible or not? As PowerPoint presentations, they have some clear usability concerns, surely, but can they be read by AT devices? And, is the alternative statement for the graphic in that "Training & Events" section sufficient to meet the requirement for "functional equivalience"? If the answers are no, why would a presentation on Section 508 by a governmental department be offered in a format that is not accessible? What could be done about this? It's said that Lotus Notes/Domino is our coorporate software for database development, but I believe that (our) version 5 will not allow compliance in anything but the most elementary "web page"; for example, is the URL below accessible? http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/r5/regional/r5_rac_work.nsf We have Notes applications all over the place, internal and external, that have been developed in version 5. We have experimented with a CMS, from divine, inc. and, although I cannot lead you to the software interface (which is just sadly non-compliant), the following websites have been produced from that system - can you consider these accessible: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lospadres/ I really apologize for the length of this posting, and my level of frustration -- I don't want to come across as a "whiner", but only want others to understand that the "feds" aren't really on-board with this, in my opinion. Even still, your feedback and advice or suggestions on ways to persevere is appreciated. And I'll be lurking on, learning from, this list. Bill Williams p.s. the opinions expressed above are mine and should not be interpreted as representing those of my employer.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 13:15:45 UTC