web browsing and section 508 under linux

[Janina Sajka]

Hi, 

David, I hoped to convey that industry had substantial influence in
weakening 508 regulations during the reg writing process. I certainly
agree with your point on that.

You are also correct that a move is afoot to revisit 508 regs. I would
hope this does not happen for another year or two. I think the time is
very wrong for that. For example, how can the Access Board properly
write regs when no one has seen what UI-Automation will give us, and
only begun to understand what Cocoa and AT-SPI can and cannot do?
Frankly, I would expect revisiting the regs today would only serve to
entrench existing practices for another 5 or 6 years.

David Poehlman writes:
> Janina,
> 
> Well said but I don't know what local parentus is <grin>  They had  
> plenty of help.  They had deep discussions with the wai and others  
> around the country and infact the world.  Much of what they adopted  
> came at the urging of industry and somewhat of a lack among the   
> consumer community although I know that afb commented in volumes.  I  
> do know that the draft we saw before publication was substantially  
> changed between that final draft and its publication through locked  
> room proceedings.
> 
> I've said enough on this though considering it's off topic for the  
> list.  One more item though.  508 will be revisitted and hopefully,  
> this time, it will be improved re the standards, but with the way  
> that wcag 2.0 is going, I have my doubts if it is strung against it.
> 
> -- 
> Jonnie Apple Seed
> With His:
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> 
> 
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> 
> Well, it is probably useful to recognize who did it, and what their
> credentials are for doing it. The agency entrusted with the task had no
> previous experience in technology regulations. In particular, I would
> warrant most of its Board not particularly qualified in technology,
> though perhaps well qualified in more traditional accessibility issues.
> Suffice it to say they had to change their name from "Architectural and
> Transportation Barriers Compliance Board." Just a few years previous to
> this assignment, they described their charge as "all the things in a
> building that wouldn't fall out if you could turn the building upside
> down and shake it."
> 
> I'm not saying it was unreasonable to entrust the task to this agency,
> just that they were rather new to the kind of regulating being asked of
> them.
> 
> The thesis suggested by David Poehlman is probably as good as any. Even
> though it smacks of "in loco parentis," it's plausible. So, too, is the
> notion expressed at the URL I posted yesterday that some computational
> tasks should be done client side, rather than server side, as if servers
> were going to be overloaded with extraneous computational loads.
> 
> Suffice it to say that 508 represents the first time fairly serious
> requirements on accessibility were imposed by the world's number one
> technology customer. If you look at press stories about 508 around the
> year 2000, there was quite a bit of fear mongering. It should not be
> surprising that significant pressure would be exerted against various
> provisions or proposed provisions.
> 
> Despite any failings, and I believe 508 has failings, I still regard it
> as a solid move forward. Discrepencies such as the one under discussion
> cannot continue unaddressed, because technology tends to abhor
> discrepencies among political jurisdictions. Industry isn't served if
> entity 1 requires A, but entity 2 requires "not A." Such things need to
> be resolved and eventually this one will be.
> 
> I would close by observing my own disappointment about 508 is not so
> much with the regs, but with our communities failure to pose any
> significant challenge to 508 enforcement or practice. I'm unaware of any
> significant 508 complaint, and that is just not credible to me.
> Certainly there are problems, and there are mechanisms for adjudicating
> complaints. I am one who believes that the 508 regulations fall far
> short of the 508 law itself and are thus excellent fodder for
> complaints. But, we don't have any--at least not any significant ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Karen Lewellen writes:
> 
> >
> > Go ahead, I am really interested in your opinion on this given you  
> >are
> > actively involved with some of the process.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Chair, Accessibility Workgroup		Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina at freestandards.org		http://a11y.org

Janina Sajka				Phone: +1.202.494.7040
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com

Bringing the Owasys 22C screenless cell phone to the U.S. and Canada. Go to http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more.