RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

["Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>]

Don, I think you are assuming that AJAX issues are because screen readers
are lacking.  I have to disagree in many cases.  For example, I have seen a
number of applications where events are not fired but the style of text
changes or form fields change.  Now, this may not be true AJAX but issues
arise where the disabled state of an edit field is cleared or the visibility
style of text goes from hidden to visible.  There is currently not an laid
out event structure defined for alerting assistive technology of these style
changes.  Events may exists but are not spelled out for developers.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu [mailto:sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu] On
Behalf Of Barrett, Don
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:15 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:



>From the pre-amble of the 508 standards themselves:

"1194.2 Application. 
This section specifies what electronic and information technology is covered
by the standards. Electronic and information technology covered by section
508 must comply with each of the relevant sections of this part. For
example, a computer and its software programs would be required to comply
with §1194.26, Desktop and portable computers, §1194.21, Software
applications and operating systems, and the functional performance criteria
in §1194.31. Paragraph (a) states the general statutory requirement for
electronic and information technology that must comply with the standards
unless doing so would result in an undue burden. The term "undue burden" is
defined at §1194.4 (Definitions) and is discussed in the preamble under that
section."  

Also from the 508 Standards preamble:
§ 1194.31 Functional performance criteria.
"This section provides functional performance criteria for overall product
evaluation and for technologies or components for which there is no specific
requirement under other sections. These criteria are also intended to ensure
that the individual accessible components work together to create an
accessible product. This section requires that all product functions,
including operation and information retrieval, be operable through at least
one mode addressed in each of the following paragraphs."


Again from 508 standard's preamble
1194.5 Equivalent facilitation.
This section allows the use of designs or technologies as alternatives to
those prescribed in this part provided that they result in substantially
equivalent or greater access to and use of a product for people with
disabilities. This provision is not a "waiver" or "variance" from the
requirement to provide accessibility, but a recognition that future
technologies may be developed, or existing technologies could be used in a
particular way, that could provide the same functional access in ways not
envisioned by these standards. In evaluating whether a technology results in
"substantially equivalent or greater access," it is the functional outcome,
not the form, which is important. For example, an information kiosk which is
not accessible to a person who is blind might be made accessible by having a
telephone handset that connects to a computer that responds to touch-tone
commands and delivers the same information audibly. In addition, voice
recognition and activation are pro!
gressing rapidly so that voice input soon may become a reasonable substitute
for some or all keyboard input functions.
For example, already some telephones can be dialed by voice. In effect,
compliance with the performance criteria of §1194.31 is the test for
equivalent facilitation.




>From the Access Boards TELECOM DESIGN GUIDE

"  However, since all devices need to meet 1194.31, the performance
criteria, ....


Also from TELECOM DESIGN GUIDE

   1.   A typical desktop telephone with answering machine is clearly
covered by section 1194.23 because its primary function is to provide
telecommunications functionality.  All parts of 1194.23 apply to this
product, as do all parts of 1194.31.  Provisions from other technical
sections of 508 may also apply based on the telephone design and features.


   2. A second example is a self-contained, stand-alone FAX machine without
the capability to make a voice call (i.e., the unit has no handset or
microphone for a voice call.).  However, the unit has a speaker to enable
the user to hear the line status.  This unit is both a self contained,
closed product and a telecommunications product.  From Subpart B and C of
the 508 standards, 1194.23, 1194.25, and 1194.31 apply. 

A third example is an "All-in-One" machine connected to a personal computer
that includes a FAX, scanner, printer, and copier.  This product does not
support voice calls.   The product includes software to be loaded on the
personal computer.  Therefore, this software must meet the requirements for
software (1194.21).  The unit itself is similar to the one in the second
example and is covered under the telecommunications products (1194.23) and
self contained, closed products (1194.25) provisions, as well as the 1194.31
functional performance criteria.



Gregg

 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
 


_______________________________________________
SEC508 mailing list
SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508


_______________________________________________
SEC508 mailing list
SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508