Thread Subject: Re: "Content" in our subcommittee
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.
From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Nov 01 2006 8:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> I agree 100% with Mike and Allan. I myself have not heard a credible
>argument in favor of excluding content from 508. Can someone please
>such an argument, or point us to one?
A couple of thoughts regarding the laws dealing with Section 508...
* 1194.1 states in part "...access to and use of information and
* it is generally understood that the definition of EIT in
Section 508 derives its definition from the Clinger - Cohen Act. The OMB
interpretation of Clinger-Cohen in Appendix IV to OMB Circular No A-130
would support that content should be included in the standards. The
following link is supplied in support of including content as part of
the Section 508 guidance:
The definition of "government information" includes information created,
collected, processed, disseminated, or disposed of both by and for the
Federal Government. This recognizes the increasingly distributed nature
of information in electronic environments.
Section 508 Coordinator
US Office of Personnel Management
Disabled does not mean Unable
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:17 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "Content" in our subcommittee
> The entire" is content included" debate has people with
> considerable knowledge and experience in the field really
> split from my experience.
> Personally I can't see how content is not included, but well
> informed others concluded it was not the intent to include
> content, but rather the delivery mechanisms. I just never
> thought that made a lot of sense to require that you be given
> inaccessible information--what would be the point of doing so."
> I concur completely with Allen that it makes no sense to be
> given inaccessible information whether it is from an e-mail
> or from a tool. It may have been the intent originally of
> Section 508 to only address the delivery mechanism, but the
> content should be considered at this time.
> It seems to make little sense to spend resources to test an
> interface for a viewer, the tool to produce electronic forms,
> the player or learning management system for electronic
> learning, and terminal emulators that display mainframe
> applications and then ignore the content which is typically
> the most important element.
I agree 100% with Mike and Allan. I myself have not heard a credible
argument in favor of excluding content from 508. Can someone please
such an argument, or point us to one?
I think that this issue arises from a confusion about roles. In brief,
think it may be industry saying "We can make tools that allow, and even
promote, the creation of accessible content, but maybe we cannot make
that disallow the creation of inaccessible content." I agree with this
statement -- you can't blame the car manufacturer for people driving too
fast. The "drivers" are the federal workforce, and they are responsible
the actual accessibility of the content.
The "handoff" in this accessibility value chain could certainly be
Do tools have to provide contextual help, as in "I see you're pasting an
image into this document. You may be required to add a text
Would you like to do that now?" Instead, should federal employees
tool-based training on creating accessible content? Regardless of what
decisions are, there does need to be an assignment or understanding of
overall shared responsibility.