WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessible Applications

for

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: May 13, 2008 10:20AM

Darian points us to http://www.state.gov/m/irm/impact/52675.htm, where the State Department states that it requires VPATs of its vendors. Of course, the State Department's requirements have no direct impact on vendors in their business relationship with Kara's employer, GMU.

I find it interesting that this page fails validation and violates all versions of WCAG in a number of ways (it lacks meaningful text in links, for one; its headings are not coded as such, for another). No doubt every government agency has a lot of work to do in making its Web site accessible, but State might wish to address this page quickly if it wants to show that it's serious about requiring accessibility.

>>> "Darian Glover" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 5/13/2008 8:07 AM >>>
Karl,

I cannot cite every Department's and Agency's procurement rules within the
Federal Government, mostly because government procurement is such a mess.
Here is one Department that does require VPATs:

http://www.state.gov/m/irm/impact/52675.htm


Darian.


On 5/12/08, Karl Groves < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> That's quite a list you have, Kara.
> One step that may help you in finding what you seek is to look for a VPAT
> for these products. Contrary to Darian's response, VPATs are not
> mandatory
> (what is mandatory is that the FAR Part 10 requires market research, for
> which VPATs help.).
>
> The other thing about VPATs is that, in my experience, they're often
> inaccurate. I don't want to say that vendors lie on their VPATs (though
> they could) but that sometimes it seems like the person filling them out
> doesn't seem to understand 508 or that the version of the application
> currently in release is not the same as the version discussed in the VPAT.
> There seems to be a lot of reasons why a VPAT could be inaccurate. The
> bottom line is, be skeptical. In cases where a VPAT was supplied by a 3rd
> party, accuracy seems to increase (because those 3rd parties don't want to
> be grilled about inaccuracies).
>
> A VPAT is NOT a legal document and does not, in and of itself, prevent or
> permit any acquisition.
>
> > Also, has anyone contacted vendors directly asking for changes to be
> > made in response to accessibility if contract language wasn't
> > originally
> > in the picture
>
> In practice: Your chances are relatively slim and directly proportional to
> your purchasing power. For example, let's say GMU is purchasing something
> from Microsoft. The chance of them remediating something for GMU is
> nonexistent compared to the chance they'd do it for a major government
> agency such as IRS or SSA and, unless it is in the original contract is
> already slim-to-none. A contract is a contract and must clearly define
> the
> work to be performed, including adherence to any standards for
> accessibility. It would be like trying to take a car back to the
> dealership because it came with the wrong engine when you didn't tell the
> dealer which engine you wanted in the first place. The best you can do is
> learn from mistakes and make sure they're not made again.
>
>
>
> Karl Groves
> AIM/YIM: karlcore
> Skype: eight.pistons
> www.WebAccessStrategies.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> > On Behalf Of Kara Zirkle
> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:01 PM
> > To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED> ;
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED> ;
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED> ;
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED> ;
> > Korey J Singleton
> > Subject: [SEC508] Accessible Applications
> >
> > Is anyone using any of the following applications or products and if so
> > could you please give me some input on whether or not they are
> > accessible to individuals with disabilities or meet Section 508
> > Compliance? Also, if anyone has done research on similar applications
> > and chose not to go with one of the following applications what
> > application did you go with that was more accessible?
> >
> > Applications such as:
> >
> > Adobe Breeze; Townhall; Blackboard; Respondus; CMS' Droople, Paperthin,
> > Commonspot and Figleaf; Luminous; Hawkeye software assets tracking;
> > Email applications GoogleApps, Microsoft Live or Exchange Labs; various
> > Blog Platforms (ex. Wordpress); various Survey Software; Banner and
> > other Sunguard applications; SkillPort; iTunes U Podcasting; Accordent
> > Capture; SharePoint 2007; Microsoft VISTA; ILLiad (interlibrary loan
> > management system); VuFind; Basecamp; GMPLS (generalized multiprotocol
> > label switching); AppWorx; and Touchnet software
> >
> > Also, has anyone contacted vendors directly asking for changes to be
> > made in response to accessibility if contract language wasn't
> > originally
> > in the picture? Can anyone make any suggestions about this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Kara Zirkle
> > IT Accessibility Coordinator
> > Assistive Technology Initiative
> > Thompson Hall RM 114 Mail Stop: 6A11
> > Fairfax Campus
> > 4400 University Drive
> > Fairfax, VA 22030
> > Phone: 703-993-9815
> > Fax: 703-993-4743
> > http://www.gmu.edu/accessibility/ati/home.html
> >
> >