WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: It's Official - New Sec. 508 is out

for

From: Jon Metz
Date: Feb 20, 2015 11:04AM

Now that we've had a chance to look at the proposed rules, what sort of
things do people believe are should be addressed? Wayne Dick has discussed
the importance of Word Wrapping (1.4.8) in his blog and this is one
requirement that would be beneficial for people with Cognitive and Learning
Impairments.

An area that I would like to see addressed would be the inclusion of 3.1.3
(Unusual Words) and 3.1.4 (Abbreviations) which are recommendations that
would greatly benefit users with Cognitive or Learning Impairments. Since
this law specifically addresses content from the Federal Government, it
behooves them to address the needs of the widest possible audience. Given
their constant overuse of acronyms and occasionally made up words, this
makes perfect sense to include this as a requirement.

Another recommendation that I was considering would be to alter the
nomencalture to allow for advances in technology. For example, they
specifically call out WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1 rather than use a generic
identifier such as, "the current Recommendation" or "the latest version."
By the time this law gets written into the FAR, we might actually have an
update to the current PDF 1.7 specification which could change the needs
and capabilities of ISO 14289.

One of the many complaints about Section 508 has been how it's so outdated.
This would at least help it to avoid the same mistake.

What are other thoughts on this? Is my idea a bad one? What other things
are there?

Thanks!
Jon Metz

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jon Metz < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Dona,
>
> Currently Section 508 does not have separate rules for one Electronic and
> Information Technology (EIT) over another. Everything is wrapped within the
> coziness of the same rules. The conversation of whether or not PDF files
> are included in the guidelines should probably best be considered opinions.
> Technically it has been up to whether the Section 508 Coordinator Offices
> considered PDFs are considered EIT or not.
>
> This seems to be fortifying the opinion that PDFs are relatively important
> now. In my opinion, the inclusion of PDF/UA is good news in my opinion,
> because so many agencies use PDFs when delivering content. Perhaps given
> the level of effort required to make things PDF/UA will help dictate what
> becomes a PDF in the first place.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dona Patrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> There were discussions earlier in the month about Section 508 not
>> including
>> PDF files in the guidelines -- that there were techniques but no
>> guidelines
>> in WCAG 2.0.
>>
>> I have been reading through the proposed rule and see that PDF/UA is
>> mentioned a few times. This is good news (right?). I've tried to propose
>> to
>> my company that we use PDF/UA as a standard and this would force us to.
>>
>> Or am I reading it wrong?
>>
>> Dona
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > OK, not fully out just yet, but the proposed rule to update the
>> standards
>> > was announced just an hour ago.
>> >
>> > To view the details online, visit
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/a
>> > bout-the-ict-refresh/overview-of-the-proposed-rule
>> >
>> > Here's what the US Access Board sent out today.
>> > --Bevi Chagnon
>> >
>> > Begin Quote:
>> >
>> > U.S. Access Board Proposes Updated ICT Accessibility Requirements
>> > The U.S. Access Board has released for public comment a proposed rule
>> > updating accessibility requirements for information and communication
>> > technology (ICT) in the federal sector covered by Section 508 of the
>> > Rehabilitation Act. The rule also would jointly update guidelines for
>> > telecommunications equipment subject to Section 255 of the
>> Communications
>> > Act.
>> > "The Board's proposal is responsive to widespread changes and
>> innovations
>> > in
>> > the IT and communication industries," states Sachin Dev Pavithran, Vice
>> > Chair of the Access Board. "It is important that the 508 Standards and
>> 255
>> > Guidelines stay abreast of the ever-evolving technologies they cover so
>> > that
>> > accessibility for people with disabilities is properly addressed."
>> > The proposed rule updates various requirements to address fundamental
>> > shifts
>> > and trends in the market, such as the convergence of technologies and
>> the
>> > increasingly multi-functional capabilities of products like smart
>> phones.
>> > Another key goal of this update is to promote consistency with other
>> > requirements in the U.S. and abroad in order to improve accessibility
>> and
>> > to
>> > facilitate compliance. A leading reference, the Web Content
>> Accessibility
>> > Guidelines (WCAG), is incorporated into the rule and applied to
>> web-based
>> > content as well as to offline documents and software. The Board is
>> > proposing
>> > other revisions that will harmonize the rule with voluntary consensus
>> > standards, including those issued by other countries and international
>> > bodies such as the European Commission due to the global nature of the
>> ICT
>> > market.
>> > The proposed rule specifies the technologies covered and contains
>> > performance-based criteria as well as technical requirements for
>> hardware,
>> > software, and support documentation and services. Access is addressed
>> for
>> > all types of disabilities, including those pertaining to vision,
>> hearing,
>> > color perception, speech, manual dexterity, reach, and strength. The
>> > proposed rule is based on recommendations from the Board's
>> > Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory
>> > Committee (TEITAC) which comprised a broad cross-section of stakeholders
>> > representing industry, disability groups, government agencies, and other
>> > countries. It also incorporates public feedback the Board received
>> through
>> > the release of two advance drafts of the rule.
>> > "The significant input the Board has received from stakeholders and
>> > interested parties throughout this process is reflected in the proposed
>> > rule," notes Pavithran. "Such collective feedback is critical to getting
>> > things right in the final rule, and it is no different with the current
>> > proposal, which includes a host of questions the Board is posing to the
>> > public to gather additional information on various topics."
>> > Public comments on the rule, as well as on a preliminary assessment of
>> its
>> > estimated costs and benefits, are due in 90 days. The Board also will
>> hold
>> > public hearings on the rule in San Diego on March 5 and in Washington,
>> DC
>> > on
>> > March 11. In addition, the Board will conduct a public webinar to review
>> > the
>> > proposal on March 31.
>> > Further information on this rulemaking, including a summary of the
>> rule, is
>> > available on the Board's website or by contacting Timothy Creagan at
>> (202)
>> > 272-0016 (v), (202) 272-0074 (TTY), or <EMAIL REMOVED> .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >> > >> > >> >
>> >> >> >>
>
>