Thread Subject: Re: Acquisition ofsoftwaretools and 508 compliance
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
Date: Wed, Mar 07 2007 11:20 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: William Loughborough: "Re: Acquisition ofsoftwaretools and 508 compliance"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
The FAR incorporates the Access Board standard. The current standard does not address the products of tools - only the tool itself. Fed agencied are required to post on the web in conformance to the Standard but not to make sure all of the documents they create using S/W that they purchased per 508 standards.
Bottom line is agencies generally do not apply 508 to content except when it is posted. This is a topic for the TEITAC to take on for the refresh.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Loughborough" [ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: 03/07/2007 12:57 PM
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-general] Acquisition ofsoftwaretools and 508 compliance
Truesdell Nick wrote:
> To clarify,
> Without question an authoring tool purchased by the federal government
> must itself be accessible to persons with disabilities. The part that
> may be outside of scope is the tool's ability to produce accessible
> content. The requirement in 508 is that the web content be accessible.
> Notably lacking is any prescription as to how that comes to be. William
> brought up two examples that are worth addressing in turn.
> In the case of XML/HTML/CSS, etc. editors the output is a text file that
> can be opened, reviewed, remediated, etc. As a matter of process a
> manual fixing of a file will prove to be tedious and those tools
> allowing for correction within the tool will certainly be looked upon
> more favorably. Hence the view that this is a "nice to have."
NOT just "nice to have". The use of a text editor like NotePad is
clearly unacceptable even though in theory one could do these forms of
editing therewith. The tools for making accessible content are a
prerequisite for that task, not a mere convenience. The whole idea of
the regulations is to make a level playing field and since the job is to
make accessible content, the tool must be able to do so else it's not a
tool but a trial.
> The case of content management systems is different. In this case
> content is taken from a repository, dropped into a standardized
> presentation, and then subsequently displayed to the user. Here the only
> solution is to fix the template when possible or in the worst case
> scenario fix the tool itself.
Again it might be "possible" to "fix the template" but that's not the
point. These tools (all "authoring tools" including the "save to the
Web" features of word processors) MUST be fixed to provide accessible
product or it is clear that the Acquisition Regulations prohibit their
purchase. Once we specify the "product" (accessible Web materials) then
it goes essentially without saying that the tools used to craft it must
have that as their output.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: William Loughborough: "Re: Acquisition ofsoftwaretools and 508 compliance"