View LISTSERV archives

ITACCESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ITACCESS Home

ITACCESS Home

ITACCESS  January 2008

ITACCESS January 2008

Subject:

Re: Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates

From:

Jon Gunderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The EDUCAUSE IT Accessibility Constituent Group Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:04:33 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (255 lines)

Chad,
I think this is very typical, in my experience many companies claim to be accessible until some one shows them the  accessibility problems of their product or services.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:32:22 -0600
>From: "Killingsworth, Chad" <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board Standards - Draft Updates  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   Missouri has its own standards. It just happens to
>   be the Section 508 standards with a couple of tweaks
>   (usually lessening the standard). The standard
>   itself is not written into the law and as such can
>   be changed without too much headache. There has been
>   some discussion of updating the standards when the
>   Access Board updates their standards, but as a state
>   we aren't too thrilled with the idea.
>
>    
>
>   The primary problem spot remains multimedia. The
>   cost to an institution of higher education to be
>   completely compliant is huge. Ignoring content from
>   our television station, radio station and any
>   athletic events, we estimated that it would be over
>   $1 million to caption and describe our multimedia
>   content in a year. In many cases this simply means
>   we tell faculty that they can't post multimedia
>   content unless they can provide the captioning. In
>   Missouri, we are in the process of lessening the
>   standard to allow for a transcript. We are also
>   excluding content in which the audience is
>   restricted and already has an avenue for a 504
>   accommodation.
>
>    
>
>   The second major problem continues to be
>   procurement. From major vendors (such as Microsoft,
>   Adobe, etc), we can at least get valid VPAT answers.
>   However when we start looking at smaller companies
>   we often get VPATs that show perfect compliance when
>   the actual product isn't even close. As an example,
>   we recently purchased a web-based ethics violation
>   reporting system. The vendor (which is used by many
>   Universities and multiple federal agencies) claimed
>   perfect compliance on their VPAT and was awarded the
>   contract. As this was a high-profile system, I was
>   asked to do a final review before the product was
>   rolled out. None of the form fields had labels. I
>   went and tested the product on our AT lab and it was
>   a mess - the form was completely unusable. We had to
>   threaten legal action to get the vendor to even
>   partially comply.
>
>    
>
>   The new TEITAC recommendations and WCAG 2.0 are
>   going to make the procurement process worse - not
>   better. For a web-based system, the current standard
>   has around 20 checkpoints.  With the new standards
>   we're moving to over 50. How many accurate responses
>   do you think we're going to get now?
>
>    
>
>   Chad Killingsworth
>
>   Web Projects Coordinator
>
>   Missouri State University
>
>    
>
>   From: Terry Thompson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>   Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:22 PM
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board
>   Standards - Draft Updates
>
>    
>
>   Hi Abbie,
>
>    
>
>   The latest delivery plan for the Section 508
>   standards has the Advisory Committee polishing their
>   proposal in early January, then presenting it to the
>   Access Board on January 9. I can't really speculate
>   on what happens to it after that. It will be
>   interesting to monitor. Here's a more detailed
>   delivery plan:
>
>   http://teitac.org/wiki/Delivery_Plan_2007#Upcoming_Meetings_and_Deliverables_Plan
>
>    
>
>   I personally like that the recommended new standards
>   have abandoned grouping IT products into six
>   distinct categories, which is how the current
>   standards document is organized. This has been an
>   area of some confusion with the current version as
>   the line between categories is often blurry (e.g.,
>   if it's an interactive web-based multimedia
>   application, does it need to comply with web,
>   software, or multimedia standards?)  
>
>    
>
>   I also like that the advisory committee has worked
>   closely with the W3C, and many of the 508 standards 
>   are "harmonized with WCAG 2.0". Hopepfully this
>   harmonization will continue as both sets of
>   standards move forward in 2008 - It will be nice to
>   have these two sets of standards more closely
>   aligned. 
>
>    
>
>   Do Missouri's state standards (or any other states
>   that have adopted 508 standards) include language
>   that addresses whether the state standards are
>   automatically updated in parallel with 508? I would
>   assume states might find that risky adopting
>   something they haven't seen, but the alternative is
>   for states to start over with their adoption process
>   anytime there's a federal update.
>
>    
>
>   Interestingly, Washington's state Information
>   Services Board adopted Section 508 standards across
>   all categories of IT except Web, in which they
>   adopted Section 508 temporarily until WCAG 2.0 is
>   finalized, then WCAG 2.0 will become the
>   standard. Although awkward, I can see the logic of
>   this approach given that WCAG 2.0 is much more
>   comprehensive and current than the original 508 web
>   standards, but it stops making sense if the new 508
>   standards are harmonized with WCAG 2.0. I suspect
>   our state ISB will have to start over.
>
>    
>
>   What are other states that have adopted 508
>   standards doing?
>
>    
>
>   Terry
>
>   Terry Thompson
>   Technology Accessibility Specialist
>   DO-IT, Computing & Communications
>   University of Washington
>   [log in to unmask]
>   206/221-4168
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------
>
>   From: OSullivan, Abigail R.
>   [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>   Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Subject: Re: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board
>   Standards - Draft Updates
>
>     What happened at the Nov 12th meeting of the
>     TEITAC committee?
>
>     Abbie
>
>      
>
>     From: Killingsworth, Chad
>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>     Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:49 PM
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>     Subject: [ITACCESS] Section 508 Access Board
>     Standards - Draft Updates
>
>      
>
>     Have any of you been following the proposed
>     updates to the Section 508 standards? Many
>     institutions are subject to these standards by
>     state laws which adopt the federal standards. I
>     recently was given the option to comment on the
>     draft by our state assistive technology director
>     who is a member of the TEITAC Committee drafting
>     the standards.
>
>      
>
>     The latest working draft of the standards can be
>     found at http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26
>
>      
>
>     This draft is a substantial departure from the
>     current standard in that it combines what used be
>     separate standards/checkpoints for each product
>     type into a single list. This has some pretty big
>     implications for a procurement process -
>     especially since we already have enough trouble
>     getting valid answers back from a vendor.
>
>      
>
>     I'd be interested in other institutions thoughts
>     on the matter. The final meeting of the TEITAC
>     Committee is November 12.
>
>      
>
>     Chad Killingsworth
>
>     Web Projects Coordinator
>
>     Missouri State University
>
>      
>
>     ********** Participation and subscription
>     information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
>     discussion list can be found at
>     http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
>
>     ********** Participation and subscription
>     information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
>     discussion list can be found at
>     http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
>
>   ********** Participation and subscription
>   information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
>   discussion list can be found at
>   http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
>
>   ********** Participation and subscription
>   information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
>   discussion list can be found at
>   http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology (DRES)

WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave ITACCESS

Join or Leave ITACCESS


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007

ATOM RSS1 RSS2