Thread Subject: Re: "Content" in our subcommittee

Note

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: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Wed, Nov 01 2006 10:10 AM

>
>Perhaps one differentiating factor is the extent to which the
>content is being procured by a federal agency. For example if an
>agency comissions an online help manual, it would make some sense if
>the manual were treated as a product being procured and hence
>subject to constraints. On the other hand, a document sent to a
>federal employee in the course of an ordinary negotiation would
>remain copyright, and hence owned, by the sender, and thus would not
>be 'procured' by the agency and so might be exempt.
>
>
>
>This has some practical merit - it would not be sensible for example
>to fill in a VPAT for each email you need to send.

It seems to me that the very heart of all Web technologies is the
intent to deliver content. So I don't understand why we would want
to draw arbitrary lines around which content is developed and
delivered in a way consistent with the intent of the Rehab Act and
which content is not. In my opinion, if it is delivered as part of
electronic information technology (yes, including CD's & emails or
any other mechanism) it would fall under the applicable provisions of
Section 508 standards. Although a VPAT might be written for the email
program (to declare it's output as conformant to Section 508
standards), I don't see that anyone would think VPAT's would be
needed for every email.
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University