WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: W3C structure, Standards bodies, and more (wasHow is PDF accessibility evaluated?)

for

From: John Foliot
Date: Feb 7, 2015 11:31PM

What Cliff said - I love scrappy fighters :-)

JF



> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto:webaim-forum-
> <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Cliff Tyllick
> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 9:55 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] W3C structure, Standards bodies, and more (was
> RE: How is PDF accessibility evaluated?)
>
> Go, Bevi!
>
> And thanks for the shoptalk-it's great to hear that perspective.
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Feb 7, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
> >
> > Katie wrote: "...You might actually want to get off the back of the
> > US Access Board..."
> >
> > No. I won't. We should have been at this point a few years ago.
> > Having been a publishing consultant to all US Federal government
> > publishing offices for 40 years, I have to honestly say that the
> > Access Board has acted at a snail's pace.
> > Slowest.
> > Speed.
> > Ever.
> >
> > I have several family members, close friends, colleagues, and clients
> > with disabilities that include pretty much everything covered by Sec.
> > 508. It sickens me to see them struggle year and year while they
> wait
> > for the revised guidelines to give them equal access to information
> > for both their personal and work lives.
> >
> > Reviewing the timeline, which is excerpted from the Access Board's
> website:
> > - February 3, 1998 - Board publishes original Telecommunications Act
> > Accessibility Guidelines.
> > - December 21, 2000 - Board issues original Section 508 Standards.
> > - March 22, 2010 - Board releases draft ICT proposed rule to update
> > the Section 508 standards and Telecommunications Act guidelines.
> > - December 8, 2011 - Revised draft proposed rule released for
> comment.
> > - February 23, 2014 - Proposed rule submitted to the Office of
> > Management and Budget (OMB) for review (OMB has 90 days to complete
> its review).
> >
> > It is now 15 years and 2 months after the first Sec. 508 standards
> and
> > we are still waiting for it to be fixed. Per law, we must follow
> > regulations/standards/guidelines that are 15 years out of date and no
> > longer reflect today's technology and people's needs.
> >
> > If OMB had 90 days from last February - one year ago - to review the
> > draft, what's stalling the process 9 months later?
> > Why, in the first place, did it take the Access Board 14 years to
> > develop the revised standards now under review?
> > Since OMB is under direct White House control, is there any chance
> > we'll see new standards by the time President Obama leaves office in
> 2
> > years? I worry what our chances will be with the successor White
> House administration.
> >
> > I don't make these comments off the top of my head.
> > I speak as someone who has worked inside countless US federal
> agencies
> > and helped them publish millions (and probably billions) of pages of
> > government regulations, legislation, and public documents.
> >
> > I don't understand why it's taking so long for the 508 Refresh. Yes,
> > it's a complex issue, but not nearly as complex by, say, EPA
> > regulations. Yes, the standards have to go through legally mandated
> > procedures and review. But it's 4 years and 2 months since the 2011
> > draft (the latest one that's public).
> > Why.
> > So.
> > Long?
> >
> > If OMB is the bottleneck, maybe we ordinary citizens should organize
> a
> > protest in front of their offices near the White House. Can you
> > imagine the PR? A few hundred disabled Americans chanting, "Hell no
> > we won't go, until you give us the 508 refresh!" OK, the rhyme needs
> > some work. But I can get all the major news outlets to cover event,
> > local and national. That could move the 508 Refresh up to the top of
> the stack of paper on someone's desk!
> >
> > --Bevi Chagnon
> > (Proud US citizen, but still not a happy 508-camper) (And apologies
> > for the Washington shoptalk)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Katie
> > Haritos-Shea
> > Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 7:15 AM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] W3C structure, Standards bodies, and more (was
> > RE: How is PDF accessibility evaluated?)
> >
> > Just as an aside. You might actually want to get off the back of the
> > US Access Board - they are awaiting on the oversight and approval of
> > their proposed new standards' financial/budgetary implementation by
> > OMB. There are still a few more steps before a final rule is
> published
> > in the Federal Register - which in the US government space is the
> > official launch of a new standard or regulation.
> >
> > * katie *
> >
> > Katie Haritos-Shea @ GMAIL
> >> On Feb 7, 2015 12:27 AM, "John Foliot" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Chagnon | PubCom wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for catching those details, John (JF).
> >>
> >> NP, and really, it was only to be specific about the roles we and
> >> they all play.
> >>
> >>> I'll refrain from more discussion about who controls what at the
> ISO
> >>> as it's not for this public discussion.
> >>
> >> I'll agree that it is off-topic at this point, however at some level
> >> I think that it is important that we all have a basic understanding
> >> of how all the pieces fit together. And if anyone ever wants to ask
> a
> >> question in that realm, they can contact me directly, and I'll try
> to
> >> help.
> >>
> >>> I think we all agree on one issue:
> >>> There are a lot of standards-writing organizations (boards,
> >>> committees, whatever), but none of those standards can be enforced
> >>> until someone adopts them, such as through government legislation
> >>> that mandates adhering to particular standards.
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >>> And those of us in the US probably unanimously agree on another:
> >>> Please please please, US Access Board, get the 508 refresh out!
> >>> This is a huge embarrassment. We have the tools and software to
> make
> >>> most documents fully accessible, without blowing the US budget.
> It's
> >>> "do-able."
> >>
> >> Agreed! It will be interesting to see how hot a topic this will be
> at
> >> this year's CSUN.
> >>
> >> JF
> >
> > > > > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > > messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>