WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: RE: 508 vs. WCAG

for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Jukka Korpela
Date: Sun, Aug 18 2002 11:23PM
Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG
No previous message | Next message →

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/


From: Steve Vosloo
Date: Mon, Aug 19 2002 7:53AM
Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: 19 August 2002 08:20 AM
To: ' = EMAIL ADDRESS 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/


From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Mon, Aug 19 2002 4:30PM
Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>Sent: 19 August 2002 08:20 AM
>To: ' = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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/

From: Steve Vosloo
Date: Mon, Aug 19 2002 11:47PM
Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Cyndi -- it seems going for both is the best solution.

I was a little confused by a few lines on Jim Thatcher's Side by side
article (http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm):

"Currently all 50 states and all territories receive Assistive
Technology Act dollars and all have some form of Section 508 assurance.
This comparison of the WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints and the Section 508
web accessibility standards is of interest to states because some have
chosen to use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as the criterion
for web accessibility."

After reading this I wasn't sure if States could choose 508 or WCAG.

Steve




-----Original Message-----
From: Cyndi Rowland [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: 20 August 2002 01:15 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: RE: 508 vs. WCAG


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 ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>Sent: 19 August 2002 08:20 AM
>To: ' = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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/



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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Aug 21 2002 5:32AM
Subject: Re: 508 vs. WCAG
← Previous message | No next message

Jukka,
Audio description is included in 508.