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

RE: section 508 flaw?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:59:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1202082148180.24738@server1.shellworld.net>
Grand wisdom as usual.
Can you remind me where to comment please?  Will share that as well.
frankly it seems obvious that one  should not use software or technology 
that does not conform  to the standards, but to be honest?  I mean no 
disrespect to the brilliant souls here, but the entire process of sharing 
guidelines suffers dreadfully from bad or nonexistent pr.
I am still amazed that I have a letter from a financial institution 
stating that the federal privacy act means they need not be compliant 
either from a w3c standpoint or section 508.  Never mind their claim that 
they can legally dictate to a disabled customer what technology they must 
use...even with no experience using adaptive tools at all.
Truth be told no products that violate the standards should be on thelist 
for procurement...at all.
Will certainly motivate vendors to create products that follow the rules.
Anyone consider writing a wcag for dummies series? smiles.
With more individuals doing the web work of large companies who cannot 
wrap their brain around how those with  say no hands move a mouse, such 
documentation might save allot of energy.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Jonathan Avila wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:59:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:38 UTC