RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

["Barrett, Don" <Don.Barrett@ed.gov>]

As someone who has to be accountable on a daily basis to contracting officials, CIO 
managers, developers, CFO officials, etc., I believe that it is a fundamental disservice 
to Section 508 and an abuse of 1194.31 to use its criteria to address perceived gaps in 
the 508 standards. The benefits to the end-user community of using and applying stable 
objective standards far outweigh those gained by using the functional performance 
criteria as some sort of after-the-fact "gotcha" applied in a capricious manner.  In 
order to take 508 seriously, developers, manufactures, and agency project officers 
require clear criteria applied in a consistent fashion.  It cannot be helped in some 
cases, but the more that accessibility can be assessed against stable concrete measures 
without being subject to the vagaries of e.g., an arbitrary version of a particular 
screen reader, the better.  Some of the technical standards are vague enough already and 
cause enough controversy without our pinning our 508 hopes on the FPC, which would result 
in a free-for-all push for total accessibility and ultimately a push-back against 508.

At ED, we are fond of citing the example of multilevel tables.  When 508 first came out, 
neither JAWS nor WindowEyes would honor the programmatic structured references provided 
by properly coded HEADERS and ID attributes.  If we had capriciously applied .31 we would 
have failed mountains of web pages with these tables.  There would have been 
significantly less pressure on the screen reader developers to improve their products.  
The same tables are no longer a barrier to those who use the current versions of JAWS and 
WindowEyes precisely because we went to them and told them that there readers were not 
working with 508-conformant code; we put the onus on them where it belonged, and they 
followed the market.  Content authors, AT developers, and end-users with disabilities all 
benefit from having objective standards.  The FPC are a great backup, but they should be 
used as a mechanism for *passing* E&IT that is accessible but not specifically in 
conformance to the standards.  The FPC are extremely subjective when compared to the 
other standards and it is counter productive to use them as a way to fail E&IT that has 
met applicable standards and conforms to them.  

Agencies still have their 504 obligations which are more than adequate safety nets for 
those situations when a product is conformant with the technical standards but still not 
accessible.  Really this is the same situation we have with commercial non-availability 
and other exceptions.  

We experience enough problems every day with agency personnel who don't want to learn and 
embrace the 508 requirements without subjecting the field to the anarchy which would 
result if we gave the FPC full sway in all EIT evaluations.

Don Barrett
Section 508 Coordinator
U.S. Department of Education
(202)-205-8245
don.barrett@ed.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu [mailto:sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu] On Behalf Of Gregg 
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 AM
To: sec508@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?


This question came up a lot early on but both the original 508 standard and the 
subsequent guides are pretty clear that .31 provisions apply to all products and product 
functions.  

After the technical specifications are applied the .31 provisions are used to make sure 
the product as a whole is accessible.  The .31 provisions are sort of the uber 
provisions.  In fact, .31 can even trump the technical guidelines in a way.  The standard 
allows for equivalent facilitation.  That is, you can meet the guidelines in a manner 
different than the technical specifications if it provides the same functionality as the 
technical specifications.  When you do this, you use .31 to test whether your equivalent 
facilitation really provides access.  (see below)

Here are a few places form the 508 standard and the Access Board Guides that give 
examples of .31 applying to all products - and to being the test you pass after meeting 
the technical specifications: