E-mail List Archives
Re: Section 508 Question
From: Norm Coombs
Date: Apr 6, 2001 5:19AM
- Next message: Ronald C. Jones: "Re: Section 508 Question"
- Previous message: Paul Bohman: "Section 508 Question"
- Next message in Thread: Ronald C. Jones: "Re: Section 508 Question"
- Previous message in Thread: Paul Bohman: "Section 508 Question"
- View all messages in this Thread
I would to Paul's comments that having a plan and having started work would
go a long long long way to keep you out of trouble. Usually on disability
issues the courts are more concerned to see people making good than in
Of course, if the judge had a fight with his wife that morning, who knows
what he does? (or she?)
At 01:15 AM 4/6/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I am posting some information that was forwarded to me by Candace Egan
>regarding Section 508, along with some of my comments (at the bottom).
> Candace Egan wrote:
> The email below was sent by a person from our Chancellor's office who
> asserts that we are to be Section 508 compliant by June 21, 2001.
> This does not match with our understanding of the regulations. My
> understanding is that the June deadline is specific to Federal
> Agencies only.
> We are underway in planning our implementation of Section 508 for the
> Web, but there is no possible way we will be compliant by June.
> I'd appreciate your thoughts (and concrete information) on this.
> Candace Egan
> Web Manager
> California State University, Fresno
> > Section 508 Standards were published December 21, 2000: ....As a
>Federal contractor (recipient of funds and assistance under the the
>Assistive Technology Act State Grant Program), the CSU must comply with
>Section 508. The Standards will go into effect 6/21/01 at which point
>electronic and information technology, including Web sites, must be
>accessible to students, staff and faculty with disabilities.
>Ok, here are my (Paul's) comments:
>According to my understanding, the chancellor's office is correct in that
>university Web sites should be in compliance at the same time that federal
>government websites are. However, the June 21 deadline is a bit of a moving
>target because the Bush administration has said that it wants to review all
>of the last minute decisions of the previous administration for 60
>additional days before allowing them to go into effect, and Section 508 is
>one of those decisions. If that's the case, then August 21 would be the
>deadline. I have not heard any official news one way or the other.
>As far as differences between federal government sites and university Web
>sites, the key is the Tech Act funding. All states receiving Tech Act funds
>(which is all of them at this point) have already agreed to abide by Section
>508 regulations. That's why the guidelines would apply to more than just the
>federal Web sites, even though some of the language in Section 508
>explicitly states that it is for federal government web sites only. None of
>the section 508 guidelines apply to private businesses, and that's the main
>distinction that they were trying to draw. I don't understand all of the
>why's and how's of the relationship between the Tech Act funding and Section
>508, but what I have said has come through Marty Blair, who is the Tech Act
>coordinator for Utah, and Cyndi Rowland, the WebAIM Project Director. If
>anyone else has any additional insights, I'd like to hear them as well.
>Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM)
>Center for Persons with Disabilities
>Utah State University