(http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm)
Speaker: Terrill Thompson, Technology Accessibility Specialist, UW-IT
- Section 508 is an amendment in 1998 to the Rehabilitation Act
- Requires access to electronic and information provided by the Federal government
- Standards were written by the Access Board to clarify what it meant,
published in Federal Register on December 21, 2000
- http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.html
- Clear, consistent, rule expressed language
- Web accessibility included
- Informed by the WCAG priority 1 checkpoints
- 16 standards statements
- Very HTML-centric
- Comparing with WCAG guidelines
- WCAG 2.0 has supporting
documents
- Techniques for WCAG 2.0
- How to Meet WCAG 2.0
- Understanding WCAG 2.0
- The WCAG 2.0 Documents
- Does 508 apply to us?
- 508 as written applies explicitly to federal agencies
- State Guidelines -
Accessibility to Information Technology for Individuals With
Disabilities - http://isb.wa.gov/policies/1000g.doc (Word)
- Adopted by ISB, May 2005
- Says it applies to educational institutions
- Adopts Section 508 standards + WCAG 2.0 for Web
- We are required to provide accessible programs and services for other
reasons
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
- Section 508 is a standard written into law that might be used by courts as a gauge of current practice
- The UW does recognize that being sued over accessibility is a potential risk for the university
- Section
255 of Telecom Act of 1996
- Requires telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible
- The refresh of 508 guidelines and standards
- Access Board assembled the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) to update 508 and 255 standards and guidlines
- TEITAC recommendations presented April 2008
- Accepting public comment through June 21, 2010
- More info at www.access-board.gov/508.htm
- Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards & Guidelines
- Reviewing chapter organization, it is not clear which are the operative parts and which are explanatory
- Hard to extract the standards from the text and translate it to how it would apply to what we are doing
- Significantly changed how it is organized - original version was much easier to point to specific rules
- Level of detail is higher but consistency of editing is worse
- Numbering and organization takes getting use to; some items are recursive, lowest levels referring to higher levels
- Advisory content boxes help explain rules and give many examples, but sometimes occur before the rules they explain
- Each of the two introductory chapters (one for ICT and one for telecommunications and VoIP) have detailed glossaries
- Section
E107: Harmonization with W3C Guidelines
- Section E107 states that goal is harmonization with WCAG 2.0
- If web pages meets WCAG 2.0 then they comply, as long as they also
conform with 409, 413, 606.4, 604.5, 607, 608
- user platform preferences (409)
- authoring tool standards ( 413)
- real-time video description (604.4 and 604.5)
- user controls for captions and video descritption (607)
- user controls to adjust foreground and background sound independently (608) - not widely supported at this time
- Authoring Tool and User Agent guidelines are integrated throughout, but ATAG and UAAG are not explicitly referenced (both are under revision at W3C)
- Section
E108: Best Meets
- Odd title, an example of occasionally creative language use in the document
- "agency must produce the product that best meets the provisions of this part, consistent with the business needs of the agency"
- Essentially an exception or loophole
- What can we do?
- Terry is working on a First Impressions of ICT Accessibility Standards and Guidelines statement that he hopes to submit as a comment on the draft guidelines before June. Please review his statement and post any comments to the AccessibleWeb@U email list.
- With so few exceptions, we could just focus on WCAG 2.0 since it seems better documented, at least so far
No comments:
Post a Comment