Accessibility still is not required by law for private companies in the United States, however if your content is available in other countries where it is required, you would need to adhere to those requirements or risk a lawsuit.
For that type of situation, its better to ask for WCAG 2.0 AA adherence rather then Section 508 which pretty much only applies to governments and some states and universities since most other countries cite WCAG. (also the last 508 refresh that came out called for WCAG 2.0 AA adherence rather then its own standards) so you would be ahead of the game if you did that. If you do call for that in the call, then ask them to specify how they will prove adherence to the criteria. Many companies have 508 adherence in their boilerplate, but actually do very little to achieve it. Sandra Clark -----Original Message----- From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:37 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Question on writing modern web specs Yeah, that was my big concern as well, the Win vs Mac issue. Thanks for the replies so far! Anyone have any insight as to the Accessibility question? Should I keep it in there? Until Later! C. Hatton Humphrey http://www.eastcoastconservative.com No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Scott Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: > > You'll need some kind of wording like this, given the current state of > browsers, and, I'm assuming this is a public facing site. The need to > test across multiple browsers and version. > You *won't* get identical rendering in every browser.. Win vs. Mac is > enough to defeat that. > > On 5/15/2012 11:06 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: > >> "The site must render in an identical manner in all current web > >> browsers..." > >> > >> How important is pixel-perfect mapping across all browsers to your site? > >> > >> Are you really more interested in "similar" or "very close" > >> rendering, but identical _functionality_? > >> > > I originally had the word "similar" in there but, knowing the powers that > > be here, changed it to identical. If it boils down to it, I'm going to > > put the burden of explanation on the potential vendor. > > > > What about adding this to that line: If identical rendering is not > possible > > within cost constraints, similar rendering is acceptable so long as > > the visible difference to the end user is unable to ascertain the > difference." > > > > Hatton > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350733 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
