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

RE: section 508 flaw?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:11:19 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
CC: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>, 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>, 'Jude DaShiell' <jdashiel@SHELLWORLD.NET>
Message-ID: <C18AC41C570F214AAD320947DF8D16CE2A900716@CH1PRD0802MB120.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
All good and correct responses to the list.  I will add my less prompt two bit that perhaps this misconception may have arisen from eleven years ago when legacy systems were provided some leeway when it came to minor patches.  See:
G.7.i. - Are procurement actions to maintain existing legacy systems (that do not meet the technical provisions of the Access Board's standards) exempt from Section 508?

Bruce Bailey
Accessibility IT Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20004-1111
202-272-0024 (voice)
202-272-0070 (TTY)
202-272-0081 (Fax)
Thank you for your questions concerning section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998.  Section 508 authorizes the Access Board to provide technical assistance to individuals and Federal departments and agencies concerning the requirements of this section.  This technical assistance is intended solely as informal guidance and is not a determination of the legal rights or responsibilities of entities subject to section 508.

-----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? 

  I am sharing the below from a network administrator who works across several
  She asked that I share it, as I am not grounded enough in what she explains
  to comment.
> ---------- 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 Friday, 10 February 2012 17:11:53 UTC

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