RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

["Michael R. Burks" <mburks952@worldnet.att.net>]

I agree totally with this approach, on both sides, vendor and government it
would aid things enormously in my opinion.

Mike Burks

919 870 8788 - Office

919 349 6661 - Cell


-----Original Message-----
From: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu [mailto:sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu] On
Behalf Of Mark D. Urban
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:42 PM
To: 'Barrett, Don'; sec508@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

Don makes a great point.  

This gets to another issue of the FPC:  broad interpretive power by vendor
and government official alike.  Functional requirements like these need
metrics, so that products and services can be "scored" for levels of
conformance.  A quick (and not thought-out) example for 1194.31 (a) would
be:

1 point:  a person using one piece of Assistive technology can gain access
to the important information provided in the EIT.

3 points:  a person using at least three pieces of assistive technology can
gain access to important information and be trained (or have the AT
adjusted) for the access to be comparable in speed and usability to the
access provided persons without disabilities.

3 points (alternative):  No assistive technology is needed in this regard to
gain access to the important information provided in the EIT

5 points:  No assistive technology is needed in this regard for the access
to be comparable in speed and usability to the access provided persons
without disabilities.

As an aside, I'm glad to see this discussion.  Many of us are not on the 508
committee and this is an important forum to hash out these issues
beforehand.

Regards,
-Mark D. Urban 
919-395-8513 (cell)
Chair, North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Persons with
Disabilities

Keep up with the latest in worldwide accessibility at
(http://www.icdri.org/)

-----Original Message-----
From: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu [mailto:sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu] On
Behalf Of Barrett, Don
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:16 PM
To: sec508@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

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.  Th!
e 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: