WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistive technologies being used for accessibility testing

for

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Aug 12, 2016 9:08AM

Hello,
"One more item: In the US, it would be against federal regulations for a
federal government agency, such as the US Access Board, to recommend one
vendor's product over another, or make one mandatory over another by
writing it into the regulations. I consul agencies regarding their
contracting language for outsourcing services. This issue just came up at
one agency that wanted to require a specific software program. To avoid
lawsuits from vendors and manufacturers, they instead are listing at least
2 choices of software that can be used and are detailing the QA items that
will determine whether the deliverable is acceptable."

I would love to see this regulation! Pearson and the state of CA both
require Jaws for any testing that goes on, so despite the student being
recommended NVDA by their assistive technology professional, we need to
teach them enough of Jaws so they don't go crazy on their tests.
Thank you,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> Testing comes up at least once a month on this list.
>
> One theory that many of us hold is that if we, the content creators,
> follow WCAG or PDF/UA correctly, there shouldn't be a need to test with any
> assistive technology. Reviewing the code, tag trees, reading orders, etc.
> should be sufficient to verify that the webpage or document file is
> compliant.
>
> It's up to the assistive technology manufacturers to ensure that their
> particular software and hardware is doing their part of the job, which is
> to interpret the compliant code and render or present it to the user. (And
> that's what a lot of our postings focus on: JAWS did it this way, NVDA
> another, and Voice Over another way. Someday, I hope they all do it the
> same way, or at least present a similar experience to the users.)
>
> And the user is responsible for learning how to use their technology, and
> we have a hard time anticipating how they will navigate and interpret the
> content we create. Every human tester with disabilities we've hired has
> come up with a different twist on the same material.
>
> That being said, it is wise for content creators to run our work through
> various assistive technologies. That's where we find places where we can
> improve the experience for everyone and go beyond just compliance.
>
> One more item: In the US, it would be against federal regulations for a
> federal government agency, such as the US Access Board, to recommend one
> vendor's product over another, or make one mandatory over another by
> writing it into the regulations. I consul agencies regarding their
> contracting language for outsourcing services. This issue just came up at
> one agency that wanted to require a specific software program. To avoid
> lawsuits from vendors and manufacturers, they instead are listing at least
> 2 choices of software that can be used and are detailing the QA items that
> will determine whether the deliverable is acceptable.
>
> If the Access Board goes and mandates JAWS versus NVDA, for example, I bet
> there will be a lawsuit quick as a bunny can hop.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> — — —
> Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com
> Technologists, Consultants, Trainers, Designers, and Developers
> for publishing & communication
> | Acrobat PDF | Print | EPUBS | Sec. 508 Accessibility |
> — — —
>
>
> > > > >