E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)

From: Spruill, Kevin (NIH/NLM)
Date: Tue, Dec 09 2003 10:28AM
Subject: RE: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
No previous message | Next message →

Jason,

Thanx for the due diligence, and checking in w/ Ken. There's only one
problem with this... Considering the fact that most universities, and state
govt's are codifying practices that mimic if not directly adhere to the
Section 508 guidelines, the question is moot. Similarly, the main point that
most commentors have made to you and Giorgio is this...

Universities, and other entities could mistakenly view the use of your new
Transcoder, and the provision of equivalent text only pages as being
sufficient to meet compliance. Hence my initial comments to you suggesting a
re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort. It really is that
simple. Unfortunately, in the effort to defend the companies efforts, the
main complaints and problems aren't being addressed.

No one said the tool or by extension the company was evil... We're just
worried that it will be misused/misapplied and therefore do more damage than
good.

HK

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Taylor-UsableNet [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 12:50 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update


In order to follow up some postings with regard the legal position of
Universities with regard to Section 508 and Web Accessibility. I approached
Ken. S. Nakata of The US DOJ. In short, it seems that the provision of
Section 508 effecting Universities due to Tech Act funding was wrong and we
apologize for this. My short e-mail discussion with Ken is below.


-----------------

1. "If I am creating and maintaining web content for students and faculty of
a public university which Disabilities act would most likely apply to my web
content?"

504 (if federally-funded) and title II of the ADA.

2. "Does Section 508 of the Rehabilitations act apply to me in the above
scenario - if so when and why, and if not when and why?"

No. (when ask for clarity on this, the response was "508 doesn't apply. The
stuff from Cynthia is incorrect, because that was a former (and
unsupportable) position articulated by the Department of Education. We had
to get them to change that".)

3. What types of access to web content should a university consider to
satisfy their legal requirements under any laws you outline above?

First, it's probably essential to provide access to alternative sources of
information... e.g. a person answering email or the phone regarding web page
content. Doesn't necessarily have to be 24/7, but the delay in response
shouldn't be unreasonable (of course, that depends on what it is that's
required). As far as design standards, either 508 or WAI would go a long
way to meeting 504/ada obligations in most circumstances (but not all as
these standards do not aid all forms of disabilities).

------------------

Ken is referring to the below 508 statement on Cynthia's site being out
dated.

[12] Section 508 was originally added to the Rehabilitation Act in 1986.

From: Jason Taylor-UsableNet
Date: Tue, Dec 09 2003 11:17AM
Subject: Re: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
← Previous message | No next message

Hello Kevin

I feel you are making me post the same reply a third time (once me and once
Giorgio) so I apologize if this is repeating previous postings but again you
say we need a "re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort".

We view the recent postings only as good community feedback and I have not
or would not describe that we feel you are making us out to be evil (not
sure where that came from). I again point to the posting at
http://www.usablenet.com/accessibility_usability/textonly.html
Entitled: Text-only mode as part of website accessibility and usability

This was as a direct response to some of these postings and clearly outlines
how we see a text-mode or providing and controlling a text alternative
interface can benefit an overall accessibility strategy.

I agree that the majority of the postings where in response to marketing
wording and not product function and I agree that it fell on the wrong side
of the tracks - for that we are sorry.

On the last posting with regard communication on section 508 - it was purely
sharing with the community some clarification on one of the points
discussed.

We have created a suite of products that are presented as a complete
solution to create accessible and usable content; from finding issues,
fixing issues and then providing the flexible display options. This is our
product position.

Regards
Jason Taylor




> Jason,
>
> Thanx for the due diligence, and checking in w/ Ken. There's only one
> problem with this... Considering the fact that most universities, and state
> govt's are codifying practices that mimic if not directly adhere to the
> Section 508 guidelines, the question is moot. Similarly, the main point that
> most commentors have made to you and Giorgio is this...
>
> Universities, and other entities could mistakenly view the use of your new
> Transcoder, and the provision of equivalent text only pages as being
> sufficient to meet compliance. Hence my initial comments to you suggesting a
> re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort. It really is that
> simple. Unfortunately, in the effort to defend the companies efforts, the
> main complaints and problems aren't being addressed.
>
> No one said the tool or by extension the company was evil... We're just
> worried that it will be misused/misapplied and therefore do more damage than
> good.
>
> HK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Taylor-UsableNet [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
>
>
> In order to follow up some postings with regard the legal position of
> Universities with regard to Section 508 and Web Accessibility. I approached
> Ken. S. Nakata of The US DOJ. In short, it seems that the provision of
> Section 508 effecting Universities due to Tech Act funding was wrong and we
> apologize for this. My short e-mail discussion with Ken is below.
>
>
> -----------------
>
> 1. "If I am creating and maintaining web content for students and faculty of
> a public university which Disabilities act would most likely apply to my web
> content?"
>
> 504 (if federally-funded) and title II of the ADA.
>
> 2. "Does Section 508 of the Rehabilitations act apply to me in the above
> scenario - if so when and why, and if not when and why?"
>
> No. (when ask for clarity on this, the response was "508 doesn't apply. The
> stuff from Cynthia is incorrect, because that was a former (and
> unsupportable) position articulated by the Department of Education. We had
> to get them to change that".)
>
> 3. What types of access to web content should a university consider to
> satisfy their legal requirements under any laws you outline above?
>
> First, it's probably essential to provide access to alternative sources of
> information... e.g. a person answering email or the phone regarding web page
> content. Doesn't necessarily have to be 24/7, but the delay in response
> shouldn't be unreasonable (of course, that depends on what it is that's
> required). As far as design standards, either 508 or WAI would go a long
> way to meeting 504/ada obligations in most circumstances (but not all as
> these standards do not aid all forms of disabilities).
>
> ------------------
>
> Ken is referring to the below 508 statement on Cynthia's site being out
> dated.
>
> [12] Section 508 was originally added to the Rehabilitation Act in 1986.