WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: 508 vs. WCAG

for

From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Aug 19, 2002 4:30PM

Steve,
Unfortunately a U.S. court would want to see 508 compliance
where it is needed (e.g., for a federal agency). I am not familiar
with the new UK law so I don't know what their criteria for
accessible design are, however, I would imagine the same thing. They
would want to see sites designed to their criteria. To be on the
safe side, I would go with both (not too hard to do).
Cyndi Rowland



>Thanks Jukka.
>
>It seems that to achieve 508 compliance you'd go for Priority 1 plus a
>few others from priority 2 and 3. Sounds very reasonable.
>
>I'm still not sure if both are required, i.e. will a UK court accept
>508, and a US court accept Priority 1 plus a few others from priority 2
>and 3? But I suppose if it is so easy to achieve compliance for both
>then an answer isn't needed. I'll just do it.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jukka Korpela [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
>Sent: 19 August 2002 08:20 AM
>To: ' <EMAIL REMOVED> '
>Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG
>
>
>Jim Thatcher wrote:
>
>> Maybe my Side-By-Side comparison of Section 508 and
>> WCAG Priority 1 will help you: http://jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm.
>
>It's a very informative comparison. But would it be possible to include
>there, or put somewhere, a compact list of main differences? As far as I
>can see (and I started studying 508 rather recently), they are:
>
>Rules in WCAG 1.0 but not in Section 508:
>- WCAG checkpoint 1.3 (auditory description of visual track in
>multimedia)
>- WCAG checkpoint 4.1 (identify changes in natural language)
>- WCAG checkpoint 6.2 (ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are
>updated)
>- WCAG checkpoint 14.1 (use the clearest and simplest language
>appropriate for the site's content)
>
>Rules in Section 508 but not in WCAG 1.0:
>- Section 508 rule (p) (when a timed response is required, the user
>shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is
>required).
>
>Section 508 rule (n), related to forms, corresponds to a set of WCAG 1.0
>checkpoints which are however priority 2.
>
>There are also items where either WCAG 1.0 or Section 508 is more
>restrictive, as well as differences in formulations. Perhaps the most
>essential is that Section 508 (o) specifically requires that a method be
>provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation links; WCAG
>has a more vague checkpoint, with priority 3.
>
>The conclusion is that if you can satisfy WCAG 1.0 priority 1
>requirements, it doesn't probably take much to comply with Section 508
>too, though you have a a few things to check out. In the opposite
>direction, in addition to the other issues, you would need to add some
>lang attributes to comply with checkpoint 6.2, and this might take quite
>some work, and nobody who reads guideline 14.1 as written can ever
>honestly claim conformance to it. (And it still wouldn't be good enough
>if you could, by miracle, comply with it; for the guideline itself
>requires too much and too little at the same time - surely all content
>should be presented as simply as possible for the content itself, not
>for some "site" as a whole.)
>
>--
>Jukka Korpela, senior adviser
>TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre http://www.tieke.fi
>Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399
>
>
>
>----
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
>visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>
>----
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
>visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


--
< <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
Project Director, Web Accessibility In Mind (WebAIM)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-6800
(435) 797-3381
FAX (435) 797-2044
<http://www.webaim.org>;


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/